This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm going to try building my first prep set tomorrow, but need to know where to read about all the steps I should take in order to do it correctly. I've nosed around a bit, but can't find anything obvious. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Right above the "Prep areas" is this
At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a prep area
Check to make sure basic review requirements were completed.
Any outstanding issue following needs to be addressed before promoting.
Check the article history for any substantive changes since it was nominated or reviewed.
Images for the lead slot must be freely licensed. Fair-use images are not permitted. Images loaded on Commons that appear on the Main Page are automatically protected by KrinkleBot.
Hook must be stated in both the article and source (which must be cited at the end of the article sentence where stated).
Hook should make sense grammatically.
Try to vary subject matters within each prep area.
Try to select a funny, quirky or otherwise upbeat hook for the last or bottom hook in the set.
Steps to add a hook to prep
In one tab, open the nomination page of the hook you want to promote.
In a second tab, open the prep set you intend to add the hook to.
Wanna skip all this fuss? Install WP:PSHAW instead! Does most of the heavy lifting for ya :)
For hooks held for specific dates, refer to "Local update times" section on DYK Queue.
Completed Prep area number sets will be promoted by an administrator to corresponding Queue number.
Copy and paste the hook into a chosen slot.
Make sure there's a space between ... and that, and a ? at the end.
Check that there's a bold link to the article.
If it's the lead (first) hook, paste the image where indicated at the top of the template.
Copy and paste ALL the credit information (the {{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}} templates) at the bottom
Check your work in the prep's Preview mode.
At the bottom under "Credits", to the right of each article should have the link "View nom subpage" ; if not, a subpage parameter will need to be added to the DYKmake.
Save the Prep page.
Closing the DYK nomination page
At the upper left
Change {{DYKsubpage to {{subst:DYKsubpage
Change |passed= to |passed=yes
At the bottom
Just above the line containing
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
insert a new, separate line containing one of the following:
To [[T:DYK/P1|Prep 1]]
To [[T:DYK/P2|Prep 2]]
To [[T:DYK/P3|Prep 3]]
To [[T:DYK/P4|Prep 4]]
To [[T:DYK/P5|Prep 5]]
To [[T:DYK/P6|Prep 6]]
To [[T:DYK/P7|Prep 7]]
Also paste the same thing into the edit summary.
Check in Preview mode. Make sure everything is against a pale blue background (nothing outside) and there are no stray characters, like }}, at the top or bottom.
Errors are very easily corrected. If you have not already done so, I first recommend a practice or two by promoting single hooks to semi-filled sets. Ping me if you like. — Maile (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, is it okay to tweak a hook grammatically? Or should I pass it by the nominator first? The one I'm thinking of changing currently reads:
"... that at the opening ceremonies for Ontario Highway 105, Minister of Highways George Doucett was given a bear cub by a construction company for all his efforts towards the creation of the route?"
I'm thinking of changing it to the following, to make it active rather than passive voice.
"... that at the opening ceremony for Ontario Highway 105, a construction company presented Minister of Highways George Doucett with a bear cub as thanks for his efforts towards the creation of the route?"
It's OK on minor corrections, but on this one it would be a good idea to mention it on the nomination template. That leaves a record of who did it and why, and is a courtesy to the nominator. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
So far, it looks OK to me. Once you have it all set, chances are other prep buiilders will move things around, either from line to line, or swap out between prep sets. That's normal if it happens. — Maile (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, just like the DYKMake was on the template. I think I need to clarify on my instructions. If there is more than one DYKMake already in the nomination template, add all to the Prep area. When you create a nomination, the DYKMake is automatically generated by the info you give it - who is the author, and/or who expanded it or brought it to GA. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Unfortunately, the DYNmake on the template was wrong; it caused an error message when I transposed it to the Prep page. I think one of the authors had tried to add the second one to the same DYNmake line, as both names were there. I'm assuming they both get a "make" and neither gets a "nom" then. MeegsC (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw a note that the nominator wanted to credit another person, and I saw that there was only one DYKmake. I added one for the other user, copying the existing DYKmake and just replacing the name. Generally, people don't mess with these templates, and when they do, it's usually in a way that I readily recognize, but this one was made erroneous in a way I'd never seen before (with two usernames in one template). I apologize for not noticing the error, and then copying that error into another one. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM23:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset need your expertise. Maybe it's just me, but looking at the article history, it appears that editor Akrasia25 was not the original author of the article, as claimed on the nomination template. The article itself dates to 2009, and Akrasia25 did a lot of work beginning in 2019, so much so that I have no issue with their getting a co-credit as mentioned requested on the DYK template. It was Kwamikagami who took it through GA making it eligible for DYK. But this has all gotten a bit confusing to me in regards to the prep credit templates for them. Can you please advise how this should be handled? Thanks for your advice. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Maile, I think it's perfectly fine to credit both the person who just put the article through the GA process and the person who, two years ago, made a major expansion to the article, bringing it from an 1100 prose character stub to a substantial 8749 prose character article (it has since been condensed down to 6574 prose characters). Major contributors to an article can be credited in a DYK nomination, rather than just the one who took it through its latest stage. In this case, both of them can be given DYKmake templates for the article; indeed, it was gracious of Kwamikagami to insist from the start that Akrasia25 be given credit. It looks like the two DYKmakes are in Prep 3, so this nomination should be set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, I'm wondering if I should transfer the New World hooks in Prep 3 to Prep 2 or Prep 4, to put them in a better time period. When I started this one, I just took the last (at that time) set to give myself the most time to work on it. MeegsC (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Use your own judgement on that one. If I'm not mistaken, we have an over-abundance of the New World hooks at any given time. Just make sure that whatever you swap out in another set, is not sitting there because of a special date request. Other than that, swapping hooks around is a routine part of building preps. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I think I'll leave them then. Do you mind casting your eye over things and letting me know if they look okay? If it looks like I've got the hang of things, I'm happy to go on building. Thanks so much for all your help! MeegsC (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, should I add "Washington DC's" in place of "the" in the hook "... that temporary war buildings on the National Mall were blamed for "producing a depressing air of slovenliness," but some remained standing for over half a century?" to give it some locational context? MeegsC (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC I just saw your post here, because apparently I'm not getting pings on anything. In answer your question, I don't know if there is a grammatical answer to your question, but the sentence where this comes from in the article does say "the". It didn't come up on the nomination review, but as long as it's in the article, I see no harm in your adding it if you like — Maile (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Maile66. Sorry, I obviously wasn't very clear! Right now, the hook reads:
... that temporary war buildings on theNational Mall were blamed for "producing a depressing air of slovenliness," but some remained standing for over half a century?
I'm asking if I should change it to:
... that temporary war buildings on Washington DC'sNational Mall were blamed for "producing a depressing air of slovenliness," but some remained standing for over half a century?
I've underlined the bits I'm asking about. I'm wondering whether "the National Mall" is well-known enough that indicating that it's in the US is unnecessary, or whether I should indicate it's in the US! MeegsC (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I'm utterly heartbroken. Yoninah was one of the greatest, if not the greatest Wikipedians to work with DYK and contributed huge amounts to the encyclopedia. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
evrik The redacted original link to announcement of her death didn't tell us what happened, or even the exact date it happened. It was an obit posted the last week of January 2021 by an organization she was associated with. Her last edit on Wikipedia was January 18, and that's probably all we're going to ever know. — Maile (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago. The list below includes all 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 14. We currently have a total of 295 nominations, of which 169 have been approved, a gap of 126, up 5 from ten days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Related discussion on my talk page here. The preloaded nomination page generated from the "Create nomination" button in Template talk:Did you know uses <small>...</small> tags. The preloaded nomination page is generated from Template:T:TDYK/preload. Would it be possible to change it to use <div style="font-size:smaller">...</div> instead of <small>...</small> tags? Tagging Anomalocaris (talk·contribs) who can provide more information about what the difference is. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
If it needs doing, then someone should do it. However, looking at the example on your talkpage, it looks like the div tag creates an extra space both before an after the small text- which seems like unnecessary clutter to me if true. Does it do this every time we use that div tag? Joseph2302 (talk)12:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Querying the copyright status of the image used with this hook, File:Viola Brand artistic cycling (cropped).jpg. It looks like an identical copy of a picture that Brand posted on her Instagram page: [1]. The image was uploaded by c:User:Cyclinggirl28, a new user who's only made 9 contributions all with photographs of Brand (which includes all the images on her Wikipedia page). I guess it is possible that Cyclinggirl28 is Brand herself, or indeed the unknown person who took the photo, but it also seems quite possible that the image is simply a copyvio. Just checking here what the best course of action is, or indeed if anyone has further info on the status of the pic. Most likely I will start a deletion discussion for it at Commons, but in any case I suspect we should either postpone the running of the hook or switch to a different picture hook for the time being. Pinging @Possibly, RamónMC, LordPeterII, SL93, and The Rambling Man: who were involved with this particular hook. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I would just remove all images from the article for now, while nominating all images for deletion, and move it to a non-image slot in a prep. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, agree with the temporary pull. I was under the (misguided?) impression that those involved with the hook knew Ms Brand and AGF on the image. I did a reverse image search and only came up with Wikipedia/Commons, so didn't feel the need to go with the nuclear option. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Done OK. I've swapped a few things around and it's now in prep 5, due to run on the 26 March as a non-picture hook. I've also removed the images from the article. — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok. No problem about pictures. Well, I wrote the initial article and I know Viola Brand a little ... then after writing I asked her for some picture to add ... And she uploaded the pictures herself ... RamónMC20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The images all have EXIF data and are full sized, so they're the originals and not pulled directly from Instagram. However since she's obviously not the photographer (as she's in the photos!), copyright may exist for that person. To be 100% sure and confirm that she has permission to release them, she needs to use the email form at [2] and follow the instructions. Black Kite (talk)09:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Given the above discussion, I have reopened the nomination temporarily, to allow time for Ms Brand to complete the necessary paperwork. It is a good pic, so would be nice to run the hook with it if possible. — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
... that Satyavathi Rathod is the first tribal woman to serve as a minister in the Indian state of Telangana?
Sorry, I've done a late swap between Queue 2 and Prep 5 here, as I wanted to query this hook before going live, but left it until the last minute. My query is what is meant by a "tribal woman". Coming from a European background, with some experience in Africa too, I wouldn't be certain what you meant by that. Also, labelling someone as "tribal" sounds vaguely offensive. I'm most familiar with Kenya, where everyone is notionally a member of some tribe or another, but they are actively trying to move away from divisive labels of this nature. The situation in India may be different, but it seems that at the very least some clarification should be supplied as to what this means exactly. I notice that we have an article named Adivasi, to describe the situation of indigenous minorities in India, so perhaps switching to that term would be better? Or maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree here... Pinging @Ab207 and Gazal world: as nominator/reviewer. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Amakuru. As CMD rightly noted, the word "tribal" in this context means someone who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, an officially designated tribal group in India. Adivasi is a generic term for the same. Scheduled tribes self-identify themselves as such and have quotas for representation in politics, education, and employment. The term is not considered offensive in India. Perhaps we can pipe link the word "tribal" to Adivasi. Other option is to rephrased it as "the first scheduled tribe woman." -- Ab207 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis and Ab207: ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I'd probably marginally prefer to explicitly say scheduled tribe, but if not then a link would definitely be in order so readers are clear what is being referred to here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
We just had a similar discussion last year on another such case. The discussion was inconclusive, with some suggesting that it should be fine as the rules didn't prohibit it per-se and such cases are so rare that an all-out ban wouldn't make much sense, while others felt that allowing such a case would go against the spirit of how articles featured as bolded links on the Main Page tend to be disallowed on DYK in the future. The same discussion however did suggest that such an article did run on DYK on at least on prior occasion. Personally I would suggest the nomination be reviewed as is with a decision on what to do with it coming later; checking the nomination page it appears this also happens to be the nom's first nomination, so even on that alone an argument could be made for an IAR approval given that we tend to loosen our rules for newer nominators. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A lot unsourced in this article, so I don't think it should have passed GAN. However, on the principle, 2004 was very much the before-times. The current processes weren't even around. I don't think anything done then should have much bearing on things that happen now at all. CMD (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Possible lead for a DYK?
Hi, sorry I don't know the proper etiquette around here so hopefully this is alright. I found and recently added to the article Dendroides canadensis, and believe its being the first instance of using two times of overwintering strategies (avoiding blood freezing, and dealing with blood freezing) was an interesting DYK. It falls short of the word count however, so if anyone can expand upon it I think it'll work. Mk170101 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
EchetusXe, are we sure about this hook? I thought this was an old wives' tale. I can't get to the source to see what it says, but if it's not a quote from a physician saying this happened, I'm thinking maybe we should pick another hook? —valereee (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not possible to swallow one's tongue, but it is possible to have the tongue obstruct the airway. FIFA guidance. The source actually says he saved Fashanu from swallowing his tongue, which as I stated is not possible. For all intents and purposes the end result of swallowing your tongue and choking on it is the same thing. Of course I wasn't there but I would assume that Fahanu was indeed choking on his tongue and then Cherry stuck his hand into his mouth to try and save him. Perhaps without this intervention the unconscious Fashanu would have coughed or gagged and the tongue would have been moved out of the airway, but we will never know for sure. So no he didn't save him from swallowing his tongue as he believes and it was reported, but I feel confident in saying he stopped him from choking on his tongue.EchetusXe21:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E, I can't get to The Times, it's behind a paywall for me. Unless the quote is from a physician, I don't think we can say it. Many lay persons (including reporters) believe it's possible to swallow or choke on one's tongue, but I'm not actually sure it is accurate. —valereee (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It is indeed impossible to "swallow your tongue"—despite what newspapers regularly report. What happens is that the tongue of an unconscious person lying on his or her back loses its muscle tone and slides back, blocking the airway (and thus prohibiting breathing). MeegsC (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This seems probably the closest medical equivalent to COMMONNAME. Yes, medically it may not be possible, but to the population at large who aren't medically trained they largely know what "swallowing your tongue" means. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)22:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You know, every one of our hooks is sourced to Cherry's autobiography. There has to be something interesting about him that isn't self-sourced. —valereee (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
'Cherry saved my life' Daily Mirror - Wednesday 26 February 1992 by David Moore. John Fashanu had a horror brush with death last night after swallowing his tongue in Wimbledon's match at Notts County. Afterwards he thanked County keeper Steve Cherry for acting quickly to save his life. Fash The Bash, who had grabbed Wimbledon's penalty spot equaliser in their 1-1 draw, was knocked out in an 88th minute clash involving Craig Short. It needed prompt action by County keeper Steve Cherry, who raced from his line to apply first aid, to save the £3 million-rated centre-forward from serious trouble. Fashanau, who has scored in four unbeaten games under Wimbledon's caretaker boss Joe Kinnear, revealed: "I could feel my tongue slipping down my throat as I was lying on the ground. Short and myself had collided heavily in mid-air and I was knocked flat. I don't normally appreciate having a dirty, size 5 glove shoved down my throat - but in this case, I owe Steve Cherry an awfully big debt. I can't remember much else about what happened after being caught by Short. All I know is I was lying on the ground and obviously, I would have been in serious trouble." Cherry said: "I darted off my line because I could see Fashanu was suffering. His legs were twitching and he was coughing and spluttering. It was clear he was in danger of swallowing his tongue, so I grabbed hold hold of it - and I kept hold until the physio arrived on the pitch a few seconds later." Said Dons boss Joe Kinnear: "John is fine. He was able to carry on after prolonged treatment, and he's OK. Thanks to John's penalty, we haven't lost during February, and now I'm fully expecting to be named manager of the month!"
Sure if you want to. I couldn't find a newer source, but I believe she's still the top scorer (as the team plays very infrequently). Joseph2302 (talk)00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Oversight now rectified with inclusion of the already-included source to section; unreferenced names hidden from view until refs provided. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I got this notification on my talk page that the DYK for Berwind, Colorado has been featured today, but looks like it hasn't. Is there some issues with the bot which is why I was notified by mistake? Also, the creator of the article, Pbritti didn't receive any such notification; meanwhile I have been incorrectly credited as the creator and not the nominator. --Ashleyyoursmile!08:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The hook has not run. It appears that when it was swapped out from Queue 3 the DYKnom template was left in, presumably because it was separated from the DYKmake template. Not sure why you got the wrong template though. CMD (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that, before this thread appeared, I had already added the missing DYKnom to Prep 6, where the hook had been moved, so another credit will be issued when the set runs. Separating the credits was a logical mistake to make: when a Prep is cleared, the DYKnom example is at the bottom, so one might incorrectly assume that's where they belong. MeegsC, please note that all credits for a hook should be grouped together. The wrong notice is puzzling. Shubinator, when the bot processed Queue 5, it contained {{DYKnom|Kangasala railway station|Ashleyyoursmile}}, but it issued a "make" credit rather than a "nom". MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM18:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that Mandarax. I did indeed assume I was supposed to put the nominations at the bottom! It might be worth adding a note to the effect that they shouldn't be separated into the directions. MeegsC (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the bug report Ashleyyoursmile, this was a good Thursday puzzle. After a bit of digging, this looks like a bug in the templates - the nom credit is the same as the make credit, across the board.
For "make" credits, the bot subst's Template:DYKmake/DYKmakecredit onto the user talk page; for "nom" credits, the bot subst's Template:DYKnom/DYKnomcredit.
One step deeper, Template:DYKmake/DYKmakecredit leverages Template:UpdatedDYK and Template:DYKnom/DYKnomcredit leverages Template:UpdatedDYKNom
Might be worth either resurrecting Template:UpdatedDYKNom or adding a parameter to Template:UpdatedDYK to support "nom" credits as well. Shubinator (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess we can't just undo the redirection of the template, since it was the result of a "discussion", even though anyone who works with DYK can see that it was an obvious error. Hopefully we don't have to start a new TfD or an official review, and an appeal to the closer will suffice: Izno, will you please reverse your decision? It was made based on an erroneous premise. The two templates are most definitely not "duplicates, with the only difference being" the type of box displayed; they serve two completely distinct purposes – one to credit nominators, and one to credit creators. The change has caused incorrect credits to be issued. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM19:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hehe, no. Although technically you moved a hook without moving its DYKnom, you certainly couldn't have been expected to notice that credit when it was litterally a million credits away from its associated DYKmake. And, besides, it brought the erroneous template redirection to light. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid DRV. Since this was such an obvious mistake, I thought it could be handled without having to wait for a decision in a formal review, while twice a day, every day, incorrect credits may be issued due to this error. Would anyone involved – TfD proposer Sdkb, template creator Lar, closer Izno, or redirector ProcrastinatingReader – object to simply removing the erroneous redirect and restoring the correct template? MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't have time at this very moment to dig through the above closely, since there's a lot going on at first glance, but anyone can revert a TfD implementation that doesn't work. I've reverted the implementation of Template:UpdatedDYKNom, if that helps with the above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Mandarax, and apologies to everyone here for the trouble the merge caused. Just to make sure I understand correctly, it seems there was a distinction between {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}}, in that the former was for article creators whereas the latter was for non-creating nominators; is that right?
Given that the templates are still 95% the same, I think the best way to resolve would be to add a |role= parameter to {{UpdatedDYK}} and turn {{UpdatedDYKNom}} into a wrapper. This will keep the benefit of abiding by don't repeat yourself and won't require modifying the bots (although if the bot operators are around and want to just teach them to use the new parameter, that'd be more elegant; it'd allow us to replace which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status with a personalized e.g. which you recently brought to good article status). {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It looks like there's already a role parameter (actually called |action=), so I went ahead and made UpdatedDYKNom a wrapper. Hopefully it should work properly now. If there continue to be any issues, feel free to let me know and we can figure out how to fix them. I'll also improve the documentation, which will reduce any potential confusion in the future. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sdkb! The UpdatedDYKNom parameters weren't flowing through to UpdatedDYK (leading to a nom credit with all default parameters) so I've added |_include-positional=yes to address that. On the topic of personalizing the action a bit more, the bot gets its information from credit templates in the DYK queues, which provide a) make vs nom, b) the article, c) the user; the bot doesn't have enough information to differentiate between creation, expansion, or good article status. The DYK community could choose to add this information to the credit templates, but it may be more effort than it's worth. Shubinator (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Protecting DYK pix
Can one of the regulars here explain what I should do to protect the picture that will run with a couple of my queued sets? I think the one in Queue 3 is okay. A local copy had been uploaded, so I added the {{mprotected}} template to the local file description. But I'm not sure what to do with the file for Prep 7 or Prep 3. Can someone help me? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Yes indeed, Narutolovehinata5 is correct. Unless an image is swapped into a set at the last minute, or during the actual day of running, there is no need for any special action to protect the image. As you can see at c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en, all of today's images, and the one which is due to appear in DYK tomorrow, are already protected. (And also, a local copy would also be protected by cascade protection if that's the one you use). The same will happen to your image when the time for its run is approaching. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for letting me know. We might want to change the instructions on the prep queue page then. Right now, they still say to protect the picture. "Don't forget to add an {{mprotected}} notice to the image description page (or {{C-uploaded}} plus a copy of the author attribution and the licence tag if you have uploaded a temporary copy from Commons)." Or is this something different? (If so, that's where I don't understand what to do.) MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to the pre-loaded instructions at Template:Did you know/Clear. Every time we promote a set to Queue, we copy this template into the cleared Prep. I don't know why it says that, but maybe someone here can explain.— Maile (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect that's a very old instruction that isn't really followed any more. Interestingly, {{mprotected}} is the template that says "this has been temporarily uploaded from Commons", which doesn't even match what the instruction above says, as that advises its use for files still on Commons. For most cases, the Krinklebot on Commons does the protection for us based on what's in our main page templates, and also puts a notice on the Commons file, which means we editors don't need to do anything. Most likely that instruction should be removed from the DYK prep instructions, but will await those who know more about these things. — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Back in the days before bots reliably ensured cascade protection, the procedure for every image appearing on the Main Page was for it to be temporary uploaded to enwiki, and for an admin to upload-protect that image locally, to prevent the image being vandalised on Commons. I don't think this has been consistently followed for over a decade. I'd say yes, remove the outdated instructions. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I also don't see how the date of its opening works as a hook fact. Wouldn't just "... that Toa Payoh MRT station was the first in Singapore's MRT system to have its concrete structure completed?" work? Apparently the hook fact discusses how it was the first to have its concrete structure finished (not sure about construction as a whole). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the hook is about the station being the first MRT station that has its structure complete. The date could be omitted if necessary.--07:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, the date doesn't need to be included; I only did so because that was in the hook that the reviewer approved. The unclear wording in the original had concerned me. Your modified hook solves the problem, and sounds fine to me—and to the nominator as well. I'll swap that for the original. MeegsC (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do that; it was approved on 23 March. I was going to promote it tonight, but noticed the date request. MeegsC (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@No Swan So Fine, Go Phightins!, and SL93: Currently, it seems at first glance that the bold link in this hook is about Widow Mulchrone, instead of the homestead, which contravenes MOS:EASTEREGG. Would it be okay if we reworded the hook to mention the homestead explicitly, making the link intuitive as regards the target, e.g. as follows:
No objection from me, and I should have caught that as the reviewer. My apologies, and thanks for catching that Ravenpuff ... just getting back into DYK and that totally slipped my mind to check. GoPhightins!15:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
... that, playing both violin and piano, Kolja Lessing recorded four volumes of music by students of Franz Schreker's masterclasses in Vienna and Berlin?
How does this hook meet rule 3a "interesting to a broad audience"? Specifically, how is "did you know that a musician recorded some music by students" of possible interest to a broad audience who does not already know the names of Lessing and Schreker? Where is there any surprise or intrigue or sense of learning something worthwhile in that hook? To me it is a boring waste of front-page hook space. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that a concern has been raised about the hook's interestingness and it's about to go up in two days, perhaps it could be moved to a later prep while further discussion continues? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
David Eppstein and Gerda Arendt, is this any better interest-wise? (It might need "violin and piano" before repertoire.)
... that Kolja Lessing's wide-ranging repertoire focuses on works by composers who were ostracised under the Nazi regime?
Cwmhiraeth, late to this: I'm unhappy with that hook. Sure, mentioning Nazi always gives you 1k extra clicks, but I'd rather promote Schreker - who was one of these! - than Nazi again, and absolutely want " violin and piano" because that is much rarer than the other fact. Four volumes gives a much better idea of how much. I'm not even sure that "focuses" is correct, as he played other neglected composers as well, such as Max Reger. Please amend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely, you should be happy with the hook, Gerda Arendt. But if "focuses" isn't correct, then it should be fixed in the article, because I lifted the sentence right from your lede! MeegsC (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
In the lead, it's in context, to him being a performer of violin and piano, and I don't know any other with that qualifacation, so adding that is minimum imho. Please don't tell me when to be happy. I am sad about Yoninah no longer with us, and the hook mentioning Psalm 91, on the Main page, was written in her memory. - Our readers know Nazi, why not teaching them about Schreker? Yoninah went for education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Relief, thanks for explaining. I am so used to others telling me that I should be happy with their wording, - just look at two extra-long extra-old nominations ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I'm wondering if we can tweak your hook to explain better those "students" (eliminating, perhaps, David's concerns); maybe something like
* ... that Kolja Lessing, playing both violin and piano, focuses his repertoire on neglected composers, including numerous former students of Franz Schreker?
SL93 recently promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Archimedean Excogitation but chose not to include the image. Since sculptures are visual artwork, and the image seemed reasonably compelling to me, I politely asked at the talk page if he would be willing to reconsider. He seems to feel that the people in the photo detract from it; I think it still adequately shows the artwork, and the people do show the environment (a children's science museum) and give scale. I am not inclined to engage with him further as his interactions with me came off as rather hostile, but I would like to hear from others if the image is decent enough to be usable. (We unfortunately don't have other options, at least that I've been able to find.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that referring to the sculpture without an image doesn't work anywhere near as well. While the people do block part of the image, I think it still works. MeegsC (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
sdkb After what I said on the talk page of the DYK nomination, I have no idea why you are continuing to assume bad faith on my part. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
My supposed hostile edit summary only answered your question after you asked me if I had a reason. Therefore I said that I had a reason. SL93 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
If someone else can explain to me how I am being hostile, I would like to hear it. My edit summary "yes. I don't do things without reason...reminds me of when someone on here asked if I was being serious" was in response to sdkb's first sentence towards me which asked, "Is there a reason you promoted without the image?". The part "reminds me of when someone on here asked if I was being serious" refers to a similar situation from a few days ago when someone thought that there were was a possibility that me asking for a section to be cited might be a joke. The situation is similar because I don't understand why someone would think that I might have did the action without a reason and why the question wasn't something similar to, "What is your reason for not promoting the image?". Sdkb's very first sentence was not civil which I did tell them I thought so twice, but that has still been ignored. SL93 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
So, for me, I believe we have to allow promoters a lot of leeway. It's a bit of a thankless job. Sdkb, I do understand why you felt an image was important for a piece of art; I would recommend in future that if you feel an image is crucial for a particular hook, you put that into the comments or as a note to promoter, maybe even asking that if the hook is going to be promoted without the image that a discussion be opened or that promotion be delayed instead. The image slot is highly coveted, we usually have twice as many as we can use, and there are any number of reasons why a promoter might look at an image and decide it didn't work for them. For me, with the people in it, it is a bit hard to see the art at at that size. I might have decided against it, too, even though I'd normally lean toward using an image for artwork. I assume the reason you kept the people in there is because you can't just do a detail on the artwork? —valereee (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I can understand now how I may have come across as hostile when I didn't mean to, but this issue worries me when it comes to editors building sets. Promoters have the freedom to choose whatever images they want based on how they think a set will look. There are many good images, but promoters can decide which ones are better and there is only one image slot per set. Promoters shouldn't have to deal with complaints when they choose to promote hooks without the image. It would be different if there were more image slots. SL93 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, the licensing is secure since the artist himself uploaded it; the image is just the one available. I definitely sympathize with promoters having a difficult task; that's why I approached the issue with a "would you be willing to reconsider?"-type inquiry. Part of what led me to do so was the particular choice made for the current Queue 1 image slot. Siuro railway station is currently selected, which seems mediocre on every level: the hook is of highly questionable interestingness (I would've failed it if I'd been reviewing), the picture is quite boring and of poor technical quality, and the article is part of a topic massively overrepresented on the main page (train stations) compared to one chronically underrepresented (public art). If I'd gotten the impression that the image slots were being carefully chosen I wouldn't have said anything, but given the particular choice here, asking for a switch seems reasonable enough. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I would be fine with that train station image being replaced, but not with an image where the object isn't even close to being in full view. I personally feel that replacing that image, but not using this image is a fair compromise. I was also going by the past promotions in which Yoninah and other editors would crop images so that the subject can be focused on, but cropping this image doesn't solve that problem. We have an opinion from MeegsC that it seems alright and a potentially dissenting option from Valeree. I'm not sure why there aren't more editors chiming in - there certainly has been enough activity here. I know you said that you didn't want to engage with me, but this is now in a more public talk page and I'm trying to help the issue while watching how I word things. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Speaking for myself and from my own general impression of how other regular promoters work, the image slot is carefully chosen. I have rejected multiple images for not being good enough, and I've regretfully decided not to use a good image because we've had too many such images recently. I've passed up a good image because it wasn't right for the set and hoped it would make it into another set. As a nominator I've suggested multiple images that haven't been used. I'm sure most promoters have also.
That said, I agree that we should be as often as possible using images of subjects that are underrepresented on the main page, and of course that includes post-1925 public art, especially when we're in the highly unusual position of having an image donated by the artist, which I didn't realize -- that would also have been something to point out to the promoter, who like me might not have noticed that fact.
SL93 I have no problem with any promoter choosing which image hook to use, and which one to not use the image. I have no problem with your original decision on this. However, looking the image over, it seems to me that the image is so fascinating to viewers that it might generate more views. Perhaps we could simply swap the hook to another, giving it a chance for an image slot. Is that possible? — Maile (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
SL93 Moved it to lead hook in Prep 2, and replaced it in the Queue with Chorizopora brongniarti from Prep 7. Thanks for agreeing to this. — Maile (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain DKY credits?
Hello, I am new to DKY. Someone encouraged me to self nominate so I've been going through the process.
One thing that I've found unclear is DKY credits? What exactly are they?
On Wikipedia:Did you know it says "If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits...", which links to a page that doesn't exactly explain what DKY credits are or how they are used?
On Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide it talks about checking credits but again doesn't really explain them. Also, that page has a link "DYKUpdateBot" which redirects to a toolforge page (http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/).
So how does one check how many DKY credits someone has when doing a review?
If some of these things could be expanded on in the relevant pages that would be awesome. Apologies ahead of time if I just didn't do enough research and this is described somewhere. RayScript (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe somebody could come up with better wording. A "credit" is a DYK nomination that has appeared on the main page. We need help with review backlog, so anybody who has had at least five successful nominations, is required to review another editor's nomination. That's all it means. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago. The list below includes 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 21. We currently have a total of 319 nominations, of which 184 have been approved, a gap of 135, up 9 from ten days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Holy week
Yesterday, Passover began, with an image from Yoninah's article as Today's featured picture, and her obituary in the Signpost. On Thursday, it's Maundy Thursday. I heard a related cantata yesterday, and now wrote about it, and find it worth sharing with our Main page readers: Template:Did you know nominations/Das Leiden Jesu von seinen Freunden. I am aware this is short notice, and needs ignoring rules, but feel it makes little sense any later. For Good Friday, I nominated a different cantata, Das Leiden Jesu von seinen Freunden, also latish, also making no sense after that day, - please forgive me. I was busy with the obituary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet, Kncny11, and Philroc: I was wondering whether we could possibly slightly amend the final link (Trump) for better compliance with MOS:EGG – currently, the link appears at first glance to point to the article on Trump, not the election. Could we perhaps reword the link to "Trump's election" or similar? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF·talk·21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This is maybe the least contentious thing related to that article I've been pinged for! I usually see it phrased specifically as 'predicted Trump', but we do metonym that a bit. I've no issue with "Trump's election". Vaticidalprophet21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the Alex Saxby hook in queue 1 should be changed to say "the nurse in charge of". SL93 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Philafrenzy would you please scan the Alice Saxby article and take care of what I think are some oversights, such as the one above. Looks like some words are missing in the article. I changed the above in the article to "a nurse", since we don't know how many there were. "she was appointed matron to King Edward VII's Hospital " - a matron?, the matron?, how many matrons in hospital? See if anything else jumps out at you like those Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, that article is written in British English. Here in the UK, we wouldn't say "a matron" or "the matron", we'd say "matron". She would have been senior/chief nurse at the hospital (or some subset of it). Here, we take someone "to hospital". Not "to the hospital", or "to a hospital", just "to hospital". That said, if you decide to use SL93's wording for the hook, I'm guessing that would be fine. Does that help? MeegsC (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC Ah, thanks. Never knew that. To Americans, we are more familiar with it being "a society matron". referring to a married woman whose husband makes enough income that her position is that of a party host, or arm candy for the man to parade around at social gatherings. Similarly, the term "matronly" has been used (hopefully no more) to refer to women who are over a certain age, say 30 or 40. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I have been over it and made a number of minor changes. I think it is clear from the context that Matron here means the senior nurse in the hospital. The hook generally isn't great. How about "that during the Second World War, nurse Alice Saxby was in charge of a ward of casualties from the Normandy landings?" I don't think anyone will know what Botleys is and I don't see why the fact that they were officers is relevant. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Time has slipped by and we are only a week away from April Fools. Some days ago, I suggested running just a single set this year, based on the fact that some of the submissions were not very good, and others were repetitions of the same or similar themes. I've decided to make it a formal proposal, so here is the set again:
A possible alternative for the last hook would be:
... that early in his career, Adolf Hitler was an anti-apartheid activist?
As I noted in the earlier discussion, some of the above hooks are slight tweaks of the originals, except the last (alt) hook, which is new. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose We do have enough to do 2 full sets, which was something we were lacking last year. There are quite a few approved hook there (some have been waiting a while) that don't work outside of April Fools. Also, please don't use that Mr Bean hook, it ruins the joke and wasn't what was approved. (at the very least, please drop the "loaded-gun" part so it reads "the Queen with tobacco"). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)09:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I expected an oppose from you, given that the above proposal means several of your hooks wouldn't be run. However, we don't have enough viable hooks for two full sets and we can't run multiple hooks about sex and Nazis in the same set, so I don't see an alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't really see how the Cake and Cunnilingus Day hook works as an April Fool's Day hook. It's not misleading or anything and it doesn't sound like a joke (other than perhaps it being potentially offensive). Perhaps that could run on April 14th itself instead? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that it's not suitable for April Fools. It's certainly bizarre enough. I agree that April 14 would also be a good day to run it, but given the shortage of viable April Fools hooks this year, would prefer to keep it in this set, because any likely replacement would be even less April Fools-ish. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO, they are just not very good hooks, for April Fools or any other day. They hardly make any sense. One possible alternative might be to run the one about the bean eater turned bean counter, but that is more of a standard quirky than an April Fools hook, and the above set already has a hook about beans anyhow. If there was another viable hook to replace "Cake and Cunnilingus", I'd be happy to run it, but I'm just not seeing one at the nominations page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I've given my opinion on April Fool's DYK before - it should never be misleading, and thankfully most of these are of the correct type - accurate as read, but designed to look like they might be a fool. I'd oppose including the Mr. Bean and Hitler ones in their current guise, because they mislead readers into thinking the actual Mr. Bean or the actual Hitler did those things. I'm fine with having a laugh, but not at the expense of the accuracy of the encyclopedia. — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
But it was Mr Bean (just not the Mr Bean), likewise it was Adolf Hitler (just not the Adolf Hitler). That's their real names. After all, did we not have President Clinton last year? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)09:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should use the Adolf Hitler hook. In fact I don't think we should be focusing on the 'Adolf Hitler' part at all in a hook. If this guy is only notable for being named Adolf Hitler, is he really even notable, per NOT1E? And if he's notable for something else, why are we using his middle name when he doesn't himself use it except on official documents? The man has indicated he wishes the media would stop making a big deal out of his name, as it distracts from his work. This is just an unfortunate person whose ignorant parents thought they were naming him after someone important, as is not uncommon in some cultures. —valereee (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Aaaand I see @The C of E has untagged it. I've retagged and opened a section on the talk. Let's discuss there. FWIW, I prefer to be pinged, as I often don't see things go by. Also am in a crazy busy time IRL right now. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
With regard to some of the other comments here, a Mr. Bean did indeed try to kill the queen with a tobacco-loaded gun - just not the Mr. Bean the comic character with whom most people are familiar. The hook is factual and there is no good reason to challenge it IMO.
With regard to the "Adolf Hitler" hook, that too is his name, just not his full name. There is probably a slightly better case for challenging this hook, but t would appear to conform to the longstanding principles by which we have always run the April Fools occasion and I submit that six days before April Fools is due to run is not an appropriate time to start challenging the underlying concept[s behind the April Fools special occasion.] If somebody wants to have a debate about it, fine, but we can't possibly conduct an adequate test of consensus on such a broad topic so close to the day, so with all due respect I think we should stick to the accepted standard for the upcoming set and have the broader debate, assuming somebody is sufficiently motivated to initiate it, afterwards. Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Gatoclass:. I will say though is that I hope that the Mr Bean hook does not have the "loaded gun" part in it because that ruins the joke (the QI joke!). Likewise, the above proposal omits several approved hooks that don't work any day other than AFD. Especially given we do have enough hooks for 2 full AFD sets. Something indeed we were lacking last year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The Hitler hook is just mocking someone for something (his name) that he did not choose - abusing BLPs for the sake of a few laughs is poor behaviour. This should not be run on the main page.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, when it comes to BLP, IMO any time is an okay time to question the underlying concept. It's a living person. I don't think we should ever say, "Oh, well! Left it too late! We can't change course now." I think it would be okay to question an underlying concept even if it were already on the main page. —valereee (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Reading through my earlier comment again, I see that I didn't strike enough of it to make clear what point I was trying to make, which has evidently led to your misunderstanding it. I've re-edited it to hopefully clarify a bit better. Gatoclass (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass the part I was responding to was the objection to the timing, which hadn't been struck. I submit that six days before April Fools is due to run is not an appropriate time to start challenging the underlying concept. I was assuming you were referring to the underlying concept of a particular hook, but maybe you're referring to the underlying concept of an April Fool's prep? —valereee (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :: Actually, I just changed my mind about the Adolf Hitler hook, based on the arguments put by Valereee at the BLP noticeboard. April Fools does not grant a licence for mocking living individuals, especially when they expressed a dislike for such treatment, so I've struck the part of my post above dealing with that hook. IMO we can't run it, and the same probably goes for the other Hitler and Mussolini hooks above. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that if we go by that principle, I won't object to A.H. Uunona being renamed and an alternate hook suggested another time (we still have enough in the holding area for 2 sets). But for Mussolini, he uses his name likewise the other Hitler (the Calypso and the Indonesian politician) does and haven't said the same as the Namibian politician, so I don't think there is the same issue. On a slight tangent, we have had Hitler on DYK AFD before. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)19:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a closer look at the other Hitler and Mussolini articles before making a decision, but I'm not going to do it now as I'm about to take a break. Gatoclass (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Prep builders have been working on an April 1 prep as a regular set. If it seems for sure that we're doing April Fools sets despite the prior conversation, someone should probably move the current in progress set down to a later prep soon. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think @Narutolovehinata5: It is possible for us to do a 2x10 April fools day based upon what we currently have in the holding area (approved and otherwise, I will review it later today) for it (minus the above mentioned Adolf Uunona). @SL93: would you be able to help with the build? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)11:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Given the earlier incident with Uunona I would highly suggest an independent reviewer take a look at all the AFD suggestions and make sure all of them comply with policies and guidelines such as BLP. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at the yellow drawing room nomination earlier and IMO it is not up to scratch, the hooks are all awkward and really not surprising at all. Queen Elizabeth turned into a hologram? So are lots of things. Dragons in Buckingham Palace? Obviously a reference to an artwork. They are just not up to an appropriate standard for AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Outstanding issues
We need to get the outstanding issues with this set resolved quickly now as we are running out of time. We have already agreed that the "Adolf Hitler" hook shouldn't be run because of BLP issues. However, that leaves the other Hitler hook unresolved, ie:
This relates to a different politician, an Indonesian, for whom reference by their given name is appropriate. I'm not seeing much wrong with it from a BLP perspective. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
DYK reviews are not the place for assessing notability. I see references, but they're in a language I don't know. I have no opinion on notability of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
While notability issues can certainly be brought up during a DYK review, and sometimes lead to articles being deleted, it wasn't part of the issues in play. Like Muboshgu, I have no opinion on the notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I am a native Indonesian language speaker and after looking at the sources at Hitler Nababan article, he is notable enough to be covered by national news websites (Detik, Kompas.com, Tempo, and Tirto), national English news website (The Jakarta Post), and regional news (Headline Jabar and Karawang Bekasi Express).--Vulphere01:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Given the current fuss about another Hitler hook at AN and other venues, and the possibility that this article is an instance of WP:BLP1E, I think it would be unwise to run it. I'll look around for an alternative nomination to replace it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Tobacco hook
Also, with regard to the "tobacco" hook - the original was as follows:
... that Mr. Bean once attempted to kill Queen Victoria with tobacco?
- I changed it to:
... that Mr. Bean attempted to kill the Queen with a tobacco-loaded gun?
- The C of E objected to this change, arguing that the original was better. The C of E, the reason I tweaked the hook is because when I read the original, I assumed the individual concerned had attempted to poison the Queen with tobacco - many stimulants taken in a high enough dose can kill. So although an odd choice for a poison, I didn't find it all that surprising. Trying to kill somebody with a tobacco loaded gun, however, is totally bizarre, so I think the addition of that piece of info makes for a much better hook. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I am OK if you want to put "the Queen" in there (I didn't because I don't want to fall foul of the Treason Felony Act 1848!). But as for the tobacco part, I felt that it plays into the QI notion of Mr Bean attempting to assassinate someone with clumsiness (along with the joke made of trying to give her cancer). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)13:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Set done
Since I've been largely unable to elicit input on this topic, I have put together the set myself, which is now in Prep 3. I added the Bernstein nomination (with a tweak for accuracy) because the set was too short and on reflection I think it passable; also added the Hitler Calypso hook (with a tweak) to substitute for the other Hitler hook, which looked likely to cause controversy given current discussions elsewhere.
I've yet to do the nomination verifications and I may yet do some more editing to it, but the set as it stands is in Prep 3 for anybody to peruse and discuss further here if so inclined. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I still feel that the Cake hook is unsuitable for AFD and should instead be saved for the actual date (April 14th), especially when you consider just how close it is. Had the date been further away then perhaps it being an AFD hook would have been more suitable. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
What do you propose to do with the rest of those in the holding area? Some have hooks that only work for April Fools and were approved to that effect. After all, we do still have another set we can fill and based on the current 12 hour running time, it seems reasonable we fill it. If you like, we can move Prep 3 to 4 so that the best run on the "primetime" PM set. I do agree @Narutolovehinata5: that C&C with that hook, probably would work better on 14 April. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, I'll be honest here, I don't know if "unable to elicit input on this topic" is the most accurate assessment of the situation given that multiple editors have chimed in, and among other things objected to the original Adolf hook but more importantly raised doubts about the Cake and Cunnilingus Day hook (which as of right now remains in the set despite objections from at least three editors). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Well let's just say I was a little disappointed by the small number of people who responded. But on reflection, I think the thread achieved its main aim, which was wider scrutiny of the proposed set, enabling us to weed out potentially problematic hooks. As for "Cake and Cunnilingus Day", none of the objectors responded to my point that we simply lack an adequate number of viable hooks for this year's set. Also, this nomination was held back specifically for April Fools, and as BlueMoonset noted on the nominations page, it wouldn't be eligible to run on April 14 anyway because it was nominated months ago.
One further point. I've done this every year for the last few years to prevent April Fools Day becoming an embarrassment to the project and to Wikipedia, and to ensure the survival of the concept, which already has opposition from some quarters. But let's be clear: anybody could do this. Users have had literally weeks to propose their own sets for April Fools Day. Anyone could have proposed a set, or put up an alternative set or sets to the one I first proposed three weeks ago, but as usual nobody could be bothered. So with barely 24 hours to go before the occasion in question, I submit that it's a little late to be returning to an objection you evidently dropped days ago. With respect, Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I see that Philroc has decided to ignore this discussion altogether and just unilaterally promote a second set anyhow. While that's hardly collegial, I'm done arguing the toss. He can take responsibility for his set, and I'll do the same for mine. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass - I had no idea this discussion was occuring, so I apologize if I steamrolled over any user's decisions, including yours. If you have any objections to the set I'll be glad to address them. Philroc(c)18:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised the Mr. Bean hook didn't get more hits, I thought people would find that one very intriguing. I guess the fact that it apparently referred to a popular comedian might have lessened its impact. Also a bit disappointed the Hitler hook didn't do better. Still, Cthulhu for president made for a great lead and was a worthy winner IMO. And all the hooks got over 5k views, which is not something that normally happens, so in spite of my misgivings about one or two of the hooks, it went pretty well. Somebody really should have run one or two hooks from the first set in the second though, to fill it out a bit more - I couldn't do it because I was offline. Thanks for taking the trouble to put them in a table Cbl62! Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Well done to all involved. I did think that maybe we made a slight error @Gatoclass: in that we had the best set on first rather than switching them to primetime 2nd slot. But it still went very well that for the 2nd year running all the hooks got into WP:DYKSTATS! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)12:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Queue 3
Why was my hook about Japan National Route 101 moved from the lead spot in the April 2nd queue (a daytime queue in Japan) at the last minute to a mid-position spot in Queue 3 (the middle of the night in Japan)? A heads-up or something would have been nice. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️02:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that I would have given it the image slot, as it is just a large expanse of tarmac and some coastal scenery that could be anywhere in the world. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth It probably would have been better to bring such a thing up sooner such as when you moved it. It would have been better for a discussion though because no one else said anything. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally believe that issues of what images other promoters add to prep areas are pointless. Everyone has an opinion about it and every promoter is an individual with an opinion. Such comments are not needed in my opinion unless we have to gain consensus prior to any image being used. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
There was a nice idea to mix up which "happy morn" this refers to. SL93 suggested I ask around if somebody could switch out one of the hooks in the queues scheduled for Easter (Queue 2 or Queue 3) with this one. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It's currently in Prep 7. I have no problem with an admin making the swap. Let's see what others say about this. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth It's indeed intended as a silly joke ("happy morn" can refer to Christmas and to Easter). Now of course the DYK was nearly a month ago so I never expected it would pose problems... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Although, that said, "trace we the babe, who hath retrieved our loss, from his poor manger to his bitter cross." Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec, basically saying the same:) I liked the idea to have this for Easter. (Read above: I also had other ideas. Reflecting the Passion will appear in some weeks, instead of today, The cantata about Jesus suffering from what his friends did to him will appear in a few weeks, instead of last Thursday, or yesterday.) I am willing to swap for my hymn hook scheduled for tomorrow, which is not for Easter. I have the TFA tomorrow, which is quite Easterly enough. (please - for statistics - don't look now but tomorrow.) - Thanks for having had the Kreuzweg cantata yesterday, pictured, and don't look too closely that it was composed for the 21st Sunday after Trinity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian It looks like the comment just wasn't noticed by promoters. I honestly would have made sure it was in one of Easter's queues if I was an admin. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, I was thinking that too and figured we could keep the alternating pattern (bio/non-bio) as is or move it to prep 2 without the picture? I have no strong preference either way. Feel free to make changes as needed! I am learning about preps as I go. Your guidance comments are useful. TJMSmith (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
valereee, has bio/non-bio become the new rotation? We used to have a more spread-out rotation, with bio every fourth set on average, and the other possibilities being art and architecture, flora and fauna, natural formations (mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.), ships, etc. When you're on two-a-day, every other means you have a daily person image, which is far more frequent than has been the DYK norm. Take a look at January 2021 and you'll see a far more diverse set of images, which I think is to DYK's advantage. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with BlueMoonset here. Otherwise, the GMT "afternoon" set is always a bio, which doesn't seem like a great idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeegsC (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh damn, as one of the newer promoters I was thinking the rotation was set in stone. Just for clarity, is it also acceptable to have consecutive bio hooks as well as consecutive non-bio hooks? Vaticidalprophet20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, nothing is set in stone, for sure! My feeling was always that if there's a reason for not following that ideal, then it's fine. Like, "We don't have enough bios, so I'm only going to do three in this set, which means there'll be a couple of non-bios in a row," no worries, that's a reason! But if the only reason is "I like bios better so I'm going to only promote bios into this set" or "I'm too lazy to alternate so I'm just going to put four bios in the first four slots and then four non-bios in the next four" then that's not really a reason. :D —valereee (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, my instruction from Yoninah was that alternating preps should start with a bio/non-bo image slot, and within each prep bio/non-bio hook. @Vaticidalprophet, that was never set in stone but was the ideal, per Yoninah. When there was a reason to vary, we varied -- could be because of a special occasion, could be because of more (or fewer) approved bios than on average, could be because a prep builder found a particularly compelling image that for their own reasons they felt was a good fit. @MeegsC only a potential issue when there are 2-a-days, and a reason to vary (see above) would be to change that to allow for alternation in times of day. This is not a hard-and-fast. This is simply because I was seeing multiple sets in a row that had one or two bios, or multiple in a row that had non-bio images. This was to help newer prep builders understand the idea. Sorry, very distracted IRL right now. This was not an attempt to enforce some set-in-stone progression, just to let newer promoters understand the ideal. —valereee (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
valereee, this would appear to be something new since when I was regular prep maker. People lead hooks were typically about one in four then, and it's what I was taught to aim for. It could be that we're getting many fewer non-person images these days. Cwmhiraeth, back when you were doing daily prep sets, what kind of rotation were you aiming for? It does vary, of course, especially when we have Black History or Women's History Months, which tend to people articles. I would urge that person images average no more frequently than every third prep at the most frequent: there's more out there than people articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't really agree with Yoninah on this, although we did discuss it. In my view, the set composition should vary according to the approved hooks available. We should avoid two successive images of a similar type just as we should try to vary the types of hooks and their geographical scope, but otherwise a hook set is at the discretion of the prep set builder. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't actually have a strong opinion on it, although I think it's less than ideal if we end up having to run all-bio sets because so many preps were built without enough bios and now we're overrun with bios, and other things like that. We wouldn't want sets that are half politics, or half sports, or whatever. I do think a set feels more "balanced" if there aren't more than one of any subject and if within the set we alternate bio/non-bio as much as possible. I do think the DYK section feels more interesting when we have varied images from day to day rather than, say, three buildings or three people in a row. —valereee (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hook length tool
I've created a tool to calculate hook lengths. It displays up to the first ten hooks found on a nom page, and their lengths, taking (pictured) into account. I think this would be a good addition to the DYK toolbox.
Could someone please add [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates?withCSS=MediaWiki:HidefirstHeading.css&wpInput={{URLencode:{{User:Mandarax/DYKHookLength{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}}}}} Hook length] to Template:DYK tools?
Note that it also handles Preps and Queues. For a demonstration, see here; if anyone thinks that might be useful, it could be copied to a permanent location. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM23:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Mandarax, can you please open the edit window of the DYK Toolbox and see how the individual entries look? It needs something more than you have. You'll understand if you look at the edit window. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you'd just have to add "| 9 =" (or a different number if rearranging and putting this in a position other than last) in front of what I have above. The code is significantly longer than the other entries, but that doesn't matter. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I've added this to Prep 1. If there are no objections to its presence or placement, I'll add it to the other Preps and Template:Did you know/Clear in a few days. I don't anticipate any objections, since this can be useful. Sometimes hooks aren't checked for length before promotion, or they may be edited after promotion. (A couple of hooks currently in Prep 1 looked a bit long to me, but they turned out to be 197 and 194 characters.) MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, @The Ultimate Boss! Is there a reason this needs to be promoted quickly? Right now we have ~170 approved nominations, some of them from two months ago. Two weeks is not considered at all slow.
FWIW, it does not require an admin to promote a hook. Anyone who did not nominate or review a hook can promote it. If you'd like to learn to promote, that would be helpful! —valereee (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Queue 2 lead hook image
I love this Work No. 227 image, and am glad it was chosen as the lead. The image first changed while I was scrolling, and I thought the lights going on and off was my browser. LOL. I love it. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Four Award and Triple Crown reviewing
If anyone wants to watchlist Wikipedia:Four Award or Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations, the reviewing processes require care but aren't rocket science (especially compared to understanding DYKSG) and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. They might only get a nomination each per month but there's only a couple of us that have been reviewing recently and sometimes they threaten to fall off my watchlist and get forgotten. Wikipedia:Four Award/Instructions lays out the Four Award process in full detail and for Triple Crown you need to (if awarding) add to the right table (remove from the old one if upgrading), give a talk page award template to the recipient and update the (cumulative) tallies on the main page. Drop me a message if you have questions. — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be saying that the team included more than one bricklayer, more than one assistant bank manager, and more than one insurance clerk...is that really true? Sorry, can't seem to get to the source myself to check and it just seems kind of unlikely that there'd be multiple of all three? —valereee (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: apologies, late to this party as I've been offline for a couple of days. Obviously the DYK has passed now, but as TRM says we are quoting the line the same way the source did. Also for what it's worth, and this may be a British-English idiom, but I don't think that saying "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" actually does imply that there were multiple of each. I would interpret that as saying that there was one of each, but we're treating them as a collective. In a similar way, one might say "the Barack Obamas, Donald Trumps and Joe Bidens of this world" which doesn't mean there is more than one of any of those individuals, just that they can be treated as a group with common characteristics. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, I think that's probably a correct assumption. As you say, moot now! I wasn't objecting to it so much as just making sure the question had been discussed. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Prep 5: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
@Bibliopole5795 and Cwmhiraeth: I'm unsure that Chief Constable that the West Yorkshire Police needs to be in italics here – this doesn't seem to be part of the case name. Is there a reason why it might be italicised? — RAVENPVFF·talk·16:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I saw that someone removed an important piece of context from the hook. Mostly, it's there to establish that Legend Entertainment is a sort of successor company to one of the most successful game studios in early game history. I did a quick research review and added it to the article talk page, and while I'm not invested in any particular phrasing, I think the historicity of Infocom needs some kind of mention, for context. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Amakuru as the hook editor. I can see the argument for removing 'acclaimed', although considering Infocom isn't a household name outside the IF world I might have left it in. That said, the next edit of hyphenating 'interactive fiction' was wrong (if the MOS demands it, the MOS is wrong, and I'm fairly sure MOS:HYPHEN does not demand it) -- the term for the genre is 'interactive fiction', not 'interactive-fiction', which looks 100% like a typo to anyone familiar with the term. Vaticidalprophet20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker and Vaticidalprophet: addressing both these points: (1) the use of the word "acclaimed" here seems a bit meaningless to me, and the word is listed at MOS:PEACOCK as a term to avoid; it sounds like there are things that can be said about the game's significance, but that should consist of specific attributed and sourced statements, not vague adjectives such as "acclaimed". Once you've figured out how to achieve that goal within the article body and lead, then adjectives can be added to the DYK hook to reflect that. On (2) all I can say is that you're incorrect; MOS:HYPHEN is clear, in its 3rd point, that compound modifiers should be hyphenated in cases where there might be confusion. In this case, we have the phrase "interactive fiction studio", which for someone unfamiliar with the subject would appear to be describing a "fiction studio" which is interactive. The hyphen is used to show the reader that in fact it's "interactive fiction" which is a single phrase, which describes the studio. So no, it is not "100% a typo" and the MOS is not wrong - this is standard English usage. However, since this is controversial, and since the term is linked to interactive fiction in the hook, giving a clear indication that those two words are connected, I am happy to revert myself on this point. Anyway, given that the first point here probably needs a bit more time to work through the details, and the hook set is due to go live in just over an hour, I've swapped it out for now and put the Legend Entertainment hook into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 instead. Hopefully that will give enough time for a sensible compromise to emerge here! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"Acclaimed" is a pretty neutral summary of the sources. Or at least it's meant to be. I'm open to alternatives, and my best shot at summarizing the sources would be descriptors like "successful", "historic", or "pioneering". It's meant to add context about why Legend Entertainment is significant, as a successor to a historically important studio, both for their success in the genre and for establishing the genre conventions. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I was going to promote Prep 5; however I have concerns about one of the hooks (see below). However, I have done all the required admin checks for Prep 5 and am fine with the rest of the set - if other people don't share my concerns about that one hook, that set is fine to promote as far as I'm concerned. I suppose I could swap it with a hook from another prep set, but I don't want to do that if I don't have to. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving04:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we had a discussion recently about hooks where a person without an article is mentioned, and from what I recall they're discouraged (but not prohibited), unless the mention is integral to the hook (which seems to be the case here). Though I'd be fine with the hook as is, one possibility could be to write an article on Ray, and if it meets the DYK requirements, turn the hook into a double one. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I've created an article at Dottie Ray. I've added to the nomination page, would be great if this could be reviewed and bold-linked to run alongside KXIC - Dumelow (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Prep 5 - Antoinette Kinney
... that as the only woman in the 1923 Utah State Senate, Antoinette Kinney improved infrastructure by increasing the number of state-sponsored scholarships and establishing public health regulations?
I am concerned about the use of "infrastructure" in this hook. The source does not use that word to describe those bills. Given the current U.S. political context - with Biden pushing a huge infrastructure bill that includes a lot of soft infrastructure that is not what people normally think of as infrastructure, some of which is quite similar to what is being described in this hook, and with Senate Republicans arguing that that spending is not what is traditionally meant by the word "infrastructure", I'm concerned this will come off as pushing a political agenda. (To be clear: I am not accusing the editor who nominated this article of pushing a political agenda - but I am afraid it will look that way to readers.) I would go ahead with this hook if the source used the word "infrastructure" to describe these bills, but it does not. Do others share my concerns about this hook? If so, I think we need a new hook for this otherwise fine article. Pinging: @Cstickel(byu), Cwmhiraeth, and SL93: ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving04:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick query about this one - the article says that he offered to fund or "backstop" a cholera vaccination program..., while the source (which is seemingly available to read for free here) simply quotes him as saying "I'll backstop it". I'm just wondering if it's therefore accurate to say that he "offered to pay for it"? That would suggest to me that he was open and willing, and it was his full intention, to foot the whole bill, whereas if I understand this "backstop" correctly, it would seem that he actually didn't want to pay and he hoped and expected that he would not have to pay for them. And in the end he didn't pay. Perhaps a subtle distinction, and I may be wrong, but wondering if we should word it slightly differently. Pinging @Coffeeandcrumbs and Sammi Brie: as nominator and reviewer. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, I was hoping to avoid using the jargon word "backstop". I guess we could add "if other funding could not be secured".
* ... that '''[[Paul M. English|Paul English]]''', co-founder of [[Kayak (company)|Kayak]], offered to pay for a vaccination program for 100,000 people during [[2010s Haiti cholera outbreak|the cholera outbreak]] following the [[2010 Haiti earthquake]] if other funding could not be secured?
I was about to post the same thing. I don't think it would hurt to remove that when the co-founder has an article. SL93 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
At 195 characters that's within reviewer discretional decline territory. Perhaps use "Kayak co-founder" (190 characters) or just omit the phrase entirely (173 characters)? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, went with Khajidha's suggestion. If it's within reviewer's discretionary decline territory, it must be within reviewer's discretionary accept territory too, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Proposed DYK queue for Yoninah
Honoring Yoninah's memory: I was wondering if there was something that we could do to honor Yoninah's memory. She was one of the kindest people around here. One thought was to see if any of you knew her areas of interests well enough to create a prep / queue dedicated to her interests (without straying too far from any rules, written or unwritten, that we might have around set composition). Just a thought. RIP Yoninah. Ktin (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I love that idea and am fully willing to help write eligible articles, though I don't know what the topic would be. Feels like it would be a beautiful tribute. Eddie891TalkWork21:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Breslov Research Institute, which she wrote. According to the original (redacted) post about her death, she was a long-time editor there. According to her Commons:Yoninah, she was a resident of Jerusalem. She also was a fan of what she called the "Golden Era" of movies, the actors and films in the pre-television era. I think she was a huge fan of Sunset Boulevard (film) and would have liked to have seen a lead hook on it - we heavily discussed it - but it would first have to go through GAC to be eligible here. That's all I can think of. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC) And also just thinking, Yoninah was not someone who could be pigeon-holed into any limited interest. She's the one who gave DYK the hilarious Rinse the Blood Off My Toga - she really did like Wayne and Shuster's humor. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yoninah gave so much of her time and passion to DYK that a tribute would be very nice. While not in keeping with the DYK rules, my suggestion would be to run a queue consisting of eight of Yoninah's best DYK hooks (perhaps with some sort of header referencing Yoninah) for a full 24 hours. She had her most-viewed hooks displayed at her user page: User:Yoninah#Most-viewed DYKs. People could suggest items from her list. Cbl62 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a great suggestion too! And, relatively easier to coordinate / implement. I support this idea. Ktin (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe something like this (someone more eloquent could likely come up with better introductory leanguage):
It is with deep regret that the DYK and Wikipedia communities mourn the passing User:Yoninah who worked diligently for many years to protect the integrity of the DYK feature and to make Wikipedia a congenial and collaborative place. In her honor, today's DYK queue(s) consists of her past work.
Jane Withers
... that Jane Withers(pictured) rose to child stardom in the 1930s playing mischievous little girls, "tomboy rascals", and "America's favorite problem child"?
... that Hollywood stuntwoman Lila Finn, who "jumped out of bombers, [was] chased by lions, clawed by tigers, and thrown overboard into icy ocean waters at night", performed injury-free into her seventies?
There's limited space on the mainpage, so shorter is better. How about: We mourn the loss of Yoninah with a selection of her most viewed contributions. — Wug·a·po·des01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Not that I do not think it is deserved, but I do not think we should have an explicit message on the mainpage for this, as it is based on now suppressed outing information. Crafting a special set is a nice tribute, but a public message feels a bit off to me as it stands. CMD (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. So, we just go with a curated set. No header message. I think that is a good option. Ktin (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I was looking for one such date / milestone. I support April 12. Alternately, the sooner the better. Open to both. Ktin (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cbl62, that Jane Withers hook maybe ran too recently? Since it's the image slot, it might be better to find something from longer ago. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This one's from 2010:
Gabi (left) with his mother Tamar* ... that the birth of Gabi(pictured with mother), the first elephant conceived in Israel through artificial insemination, was viewed live by over 350,000 people in 108 countries?
I was going to suggest if Breslov Research Institute could be expanded for DYK purposes, but it appears it already run in 2010. However, with the proposal above considering doing an IAR re-run of her previous work, I do wonder if it's possible if Breslov could be IAR re-run asa well. The hook set idea seems nice, but while I understand the desire for privacy, I wonder if some kind of notice is still appropriate if only for transparency purposes. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I support swapping in different/more fitting hooks as those who knew Yoninah believe is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
RIP. Yoninah was one of the most vital contributors to the DYK area, without which the entire queue and prep curation process wouldn't have functioned as well. I do agree with running some of her best work in one queue as a tribute, but as Chipmunkdavis says, it may be a bit strange to have a public message for that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a proposed rewrite based on suggestions above. Maybe it could be moved to a special occasion holding area for others to discuss and adjust as appropriate:
Justitia et pax, by an anonymous painter
... that a verse from Psalm 85 inspired artworks depicting the kiss of Justice and Peace (example shown)?
... that the Israeli-invented Wonder Pot bakes cakes, casseroles and roasts on the stovetop rather than in the oven? [included as it was Yoninah's first DYK]
... that American volunteer civilian physician Beulah Ream Allen survived three Japanese internment camps in the Philippines during World War II?
... that Hollywood stuntwoman Lila Finn, who "jumped out of bombers, [was] chased by lions, clawed by tigers, and thrown overboard into icy ocean waters at night", performed injury-free into her seventies?
... that the Diaspora Yeshiva Band infused rock and bluegrass with Jewish lyrics, creating a music style it called "Hasidic rock" or "Country and Eastern"?
... that the Israeli actor Topol, who won a Golden Globe for his performance as Tevye in the 1971 film Fiddler on the Roof, played the role in shows and revivals about 3,500 times? (expanded to GA status by Yoninah)
... that "Crazy Sally", an 18th-century bonesetter, successfully treated dislocated shoulders and knees in a London coffee house despite having no medical training?
Just out of curiosity, do we have a list of "eighth hooks" (like in the final slot) that Yoninah did? I suggest we can do five or six of these, one picture, one GA hook, and her first-ever DYK. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Given all of these proposals and how it would be a shame not to include them all, would everyone here be open to a two-set run as opposed to a single set? We could even go to three if needed, with each set focusing on a different theme that she loved (for example, one set for Israel/Judaism articles, another set for her most viewed hooks, another set of other hooks, etc.) Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we have to come up with something, and multiple sets seems like a good idea. Does it strike anyone else besides me as somewhat ironic that the ultimate DYK-gnome Yoninah, who wasn't looking for adminship and was content to work over here creating content and shepherding hook sets around, is now the one who is about to trigger an ultimate IAR scenario? Consider this a virtual standing ovation for accomplishing this. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have said what I wish to say on her talk page about this sad circumstance. Nonetheless, in the end, advise editorially following the sprit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL here and not do this, and would note it's when policy gets in the way of something one has an emotional attachment to, that often it is still best to conform consensus with it. The purpose of this project, which she clearly was devoted to, was not to focus on her nor internal Wikipedia feelings/pov, rather to highlight recent improvement in content, recent content produced under the requirements WP PAGs - in the end, consistent service to readers, not self (including our own attachments). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. I view this as more akin to a special occasion set of hooks. In this case, the special occasion is Yoninah's anniversary of her first DYK contribution. The hooks themselves are still encyclopedic, and the thread above suggests that no public tribute will be posted on the main page, therefore there is no memorial that violates policy. Edge3 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL explicitly exempts WP:RIP from that rule. Further, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines allows for memorial pages, saying: If the colleagues of an editor feel moved to do so, they may create a memorial page to honor the deceased, as long as the family has not objected and the user did not object to it prior to their death... Memorial pages are not mandatory; they are created by the community, for the community, rather than as a requirement.Edge3 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
So, you are intending by this to create a memorial. But you are not working here on a memorial page, you are editing the main page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I never said it's not a memorial. I said only that it's not a memorial that violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WP:RIP is explicitly listed as an exception to that rule, therefore the policy does not apply. I should also note that WP:DWG is listed as an official guideline. Edge3 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Um hmm. I understand where you are coming from Alanscottwalker, but what is Deceased Wikipedians, if not a memorial to those we have lost? And you've been around long enough to know Wikipedia in general, and DYK specifically, deviates by consensus. What are all Wikipedia's halls of fame lists, where most of the honorees are deceased, if not partially memorials? In Sept 2016, we did two days of complete sets devoted to Star Trek. I seem to remember a great set for the deceased Frank Sinatra. And the list goes on. With Yoninah, it's not her life we celebrate, but her individual contributions to this project. We are not writing condolence memories of her for the main page, but celebrating what she taught us with her own examples. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Maile: There is difference in content in the standards we are to apply to editorial decisions, than in what we do for ourselves in internal space. And I am aware that walled garden actions are disfavored, and I that can't really stop you (even if you are now saying you are not doing this in her memory) but what I have been around long enough to know is that I should still offer my good-faith, PAGs-based editorial judgment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I REALLY don't like the idea of doing this. As much as I enjoyed my interactions with Yoninah, I find this level of memorializing to be a totally inappropriate use of the Main Page. Pick a selection of her "greatest hits" and put it up on her user page with a note about what she did and how she did it here on Wikipedia, but not this. --Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with using the main page of Wikipedia to recognize any editor. I appreciate the good intentions of many to say thank you, but the appropriate venues for doing so are at her user page, Deceased Wikipedians and The Signpost. Flibirigit (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Something like this is much more appropriate. I would advocate for yearly awards, with the recipient being the person with the most creations in the preceding year. --Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Rather than a number of DYKs, for which there are numerous stars already, why not a DYK service type award? It could be voted on like the annual WP:MILHIST awards. CMD (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: You're right. It should've been a yearly elected award. And I've been thinking about it - how about if we ask editors that were close to Yoninah to provide the silhouette of Yoninah so that we could use it in the medal (or did I miss some kind of privacy loophole with a silhouette?) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael08:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. There are currrent editors who have created and/or promoted as many or more than Yoninah did. Not the least is the current statistical reigning active champ Gerda Arendt. And running neck-and-neck right behind Gerda is our admin Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah's contributions here were much more than statistics. I don't have an objection to creating something unique to recognize Yoninah, and I do like the idea of some kind of service medal. I have the feeling she would dismiss the idea of singling her out, but a service medal based on non-statistical contributions might be a good way to go. The selfless prep builders come immediately to mind. Yoninah was definitely riding herd over the prep areas, and since she is no longer here, I think we are finding how very valuable the prep builders are. — Maile (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I wouldn't mind if we moved everything above here to a subpage of her personal page. Perhaps a link right below the "Deceased Wikipedian" notice at the top of the page. Otherwise, this is just going to end up archived at DYK and forgotten. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't have time right now, but I can work on that. Also, I don't see people lined up to support any of the above ideas, and we can't do anything otherwise. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
These need to go into Preps 4 and 5, I believe? I'm thinking move what's currently into those sets to later sets, and then start moving these in? —valereee (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean valereee. Is there consensus to do make two Yoninah-only preps for articles that have already featured on DYK? From what I've read about her, I think she would have been the first to argue against doing that. MeegsC (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Did we reach a consensus above about whether or not we ought to run any of these? The sets were suggested, and some liked the idea, but most DYK people have not participated in the discussion. In particular, several of our regulars have not weighed in on this. But if we are going to IAR for entire sets on the main page, we need a consensus. It does not serve DYK well, or Yoninah's memory, if we go ahead without a consensus. — Maile (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to reopen discussion, and I don't think there is any magic to the April 12 date. I like the idea quite a bit and would like to see it happen unless there's consensus against it. MeegsC, we've rerun many hooks that have already run. We've rerun hooks simply to balance the main page, or because a few hours in a hook was pulled. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel the same way you do - what a wonderful testimony to Yoninah's time with us. Do you think a formal RFC? After that, if mostly nobody objects, then hopefully they also won't complain after the sets run. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Given that this is a major case of IAR along with how some editors did object to the idea, I'd agree that a formal RFC (similar to the one we had for the Apollo 40th anniversary set) would be a good idea. My only concern is that, with the 12th two days away, that date will probably pass before we reach a consensus, but personally I'd think it's the thought that counts rather than the actual date. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew22:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I removed the deletion tag, as we don't close out rejected templates that way. Instead, I formally closed it as rejected with a note that the nominator has been indef blocked as a vandal. The nomination would not have passed anyway, as the article is too old and not expanded as the template claimed. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It had not even been transcluded to the log, so deleting it would have been minimal effort and also DFTT, but anyway. Appears to be resolved. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, even if the nominator wasn't a vandal and even if the article was eligible, the proposed hook probably wouldn't have flown per BLP. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
There's clearly an issue with too much of the article being reliant on a a self published source. I nominated the article for a GA reassessment because it should have never passed in the first place. It's not ready for DYK. 4meter4 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"... that the tourist submarine Windermere operated for only two seasons on her namesake lake in Cumbria, England?" Technically, Windermere (aka Lake Windermere) isn't a lake, as per [3], [4] ("There is only one official lake - Bassenthwaite Lake. All the others are 'meres' or 'waters'"). My question is therefore should the phrase "on her namesake lake" be re-worded, or should it be accepted as fine (as most call it Lake Windermere, even if it is not technically a lake). Courtesy pings to Dumelow, Bloom6132, SL93, as the nominator, accepter, and promoter of this hook. Joseph2302 (talk)11:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine as lake, "how many lakes are there in the Lake District?" is more of a pub quiz trick question than a technical definition. Our article on Windermere starts "Windermere is the largest natural lake in England" and we have List of lakes of the Lake District - Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, geographically these are lakes. I suspect the distinction with Bassenthwaite is that it's the only one that says "lake" in its title. But I can't see anything in the physical world that would suggest it's an outlier from the rest. I think this is fine as is. — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought this might be the answer, but seemed like no harm in asking people before it goes onto main page. Especially as this is exactly the sort of thing I can imagine being reported at WP:ERRORS. Joseph2302 (talk)13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Why does DYK continue to run April Fool's Day hooks? Every year we do it, and every year, we're the only place on the Main Page that allows it. But the hooks aren't even that funny, and just cause loads of additional effort, arguments, and prep reworking for the DYK process. It also allows people to ignore the special occasions rules (which say that articles for special occasions should be nominated 1-6 weeks beforehand). All in all, it seems to consume lots of DYK people's time- just look at how many threads/discussions we had about the setup of it this year- and is an unnecessary burden on this project for minimal gain. Would it not be better to just get rid of April Fool's DYK completely? FYI, trying to gage opinion on whether I should make a proper RFC on this matter. Joseph2302 (talk)16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Also Joe appears to have missed the positive responses on social media. We have people who come because they love DYK on April Fools. Not to mention the successes it led to in improvements for the articles featured, all of which made it to STATS for the second year running. I will be strongly opposed to any attempt at killing the one day we are allowed to have any fun on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)17:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing DYK hooks themselves takes 10 minutes or less generally in my experience, and while yes discussions are aplenty about preparing the april fools hooks, as long as some group of editors is willing to do it, why should we prevent that just because we think they should spend their time elsewhere? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I like it. It's a fun thing to do, and we need silly stuff in life. As long as there are people to make it happen at DYK once a year, I see no reason why not. If anyone is less than thrilled with our set of hooks, then maybe this could be a starting point where they could help come up with sillier ones they like better. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with April Fools Day hooks, they're just a bit of much needed fun in an area where we're way too serious most of the time. As long as the hooks aren't harmful or totally inaccurate, they should be fine. Now, whether or not hooks are actually good enough for AFD is another story, but it's something that can be worked on. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
They're great, readers like them even more than we do and literally nothing matters except readers (and BLP policy), stop complaining. (C of E, BLP policy trumps readers, just keep that one in mind.) Vaticidalprophet12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm happy TFA joined us this year and hope they will next. (If trends continue, I'll be an FA writer next year, so hopefully I'll have someone's ear.) Vaticidalprophet12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
There no exact requirements for an April Fool's Day DYK. Any of our hooks may be odd or amusing and we have a slot every day for the most quirky. So, it's not clear what the proposal is exactly. Is it that the hooks we run on April 1st should be especially chosen to be humourless and boring? That could be quite amusing but might be self-defeating like the interesting number paradox. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
DYKHousekeepingBot rewritten in Python!
This week I've rewritten DYKHousekeepingBot from Java & the JavaWikiBotFramework to Python & the Pywikibot framework. More details on my talk page. If you notice a bug, please let me know!
Shubinator (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Mis-spelled Giovanni Ross template moved to Giovanni Rossi, messing up the access
DragonflySixtyseven you moved the above mis-spelled template to Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Rossi (anarchist). We don't usually move templates to a new name, because then we cannot open the corrected template name from the nominations review page. It doesn't matter that the template is mis-spelled "Ross", as long as all the spelling and link is correct in the hook. Can you please move the template back to its original mis-spelling, so reviewers can access it? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Requiring the use of the Note WikiEd template for nominations by WikiEd editors?
After a discussion took place late last year regarding the apparent high failure rate of DYK nominations by WikiEd editors (along with other issues such as their lack of transclusion and other failures to follow guidelines), the template {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}} was created, which aims to inform editors that a DYK nominator is a student and thus may need further assistance or may not be available for comment. Despite this, it appears that as of this term, the template is still not widely used (I've had to add it multiple times, but only for nominations that I've noticed, so I may have missed some). The question is: should its use be required for all WikiEd nominators should they wish to nominate an article for DYK, and if so, perhaps some kind of script or other method could be done to make things easier for them? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Narutolovehinata5, but I'm not entirely clear. Did you mean to type "if they wish to nominate an article for DYK" instead of "deletion"? If the former, I don't think they should be required to use it, but I do think they should be encouraged to do so. If the latter, I don't know the article deletion process, so can't comment on that. MeegsC (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe not required in the sense we'd automatically fail a DYK is not done, but required in the way that transcluding is required: you should, but if someone else notices they will do it for you. Though I would try to draw attention to it so that it isn't entirely other people adding it. Also ping @Ian (Wiki Ed):Kingsif (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Image note
Chestnut-capped piha
Chestnut-capped piha has been promoted to Prep 1, without the image. As noted in Template:Did you know nominations/Chestnut-capped piha, the image has some small text in the lower left. I suspect that may be the reason MeegsC promoted it without the image. I've submitted a request to remove the text. My past, similar, requests have been taken care of very quickly. (If you don't see the text, it may have already been removed.) Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone thinks this would be good moved to an image slot. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Mandarax, I chose not to use the image because the color is really off. The bird is gray, not pinky-purple, in real life. But thanks for checking! MeegsC (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
So, my hook (for XYYY syndrome) was edited without my knowledge or input in the queue by @Cwmhiraeth, and I wasn't aware until it just got on the main page. The hook, ... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality in which a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only twelve recorded cases?, was changed to ... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality in which a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only been recorded twelve times?, which scans somewhat awkwardly and requires more work to discern the meaning of. I originally thought to take this to ERRORS, because it scans to me as outright incorrect grammar of the 'basic error to fix' kind, but I'm taking it to WT:DYK because it's also a bit of a broader question about hook-tweaking. It's a thing, I've done it, any of us who work in promoting have done it -- but when it's not just a basic typo fix but significantly moving around the sentence, isn't it good form to get the nominator's input as to why the hook was written how it was and whether the adjustment is really an improvement? Vaticidalprophet12:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet. I probably have to take much of the blame. I changed your hook to "... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality where a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only been recorded in twelve cases?". I made the change here. I nearly always check with nominators before changing hooks and apologize for not doing so in this case. To me, your hook read awkwardly too, and I tried to make it clearer. Unfortunately, it appears I didn't! MeegsC (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As I understand the position, there have been twelve recorded occasions on which individuals with this syndrome have been identified. A syndrome cannot have a case, so what do you object to in my wording? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"Cases of the disorder", like "case report" or "case study", is an entirely normal wording. The article and its sources use the term routinely (e.g. "Y aneuploidy: a further case of a male patient with a 48,XYYY karyotype and literature review"), as have similar articles I've written. Vaticidalprophet14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few days ago. The list below includes 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of March. We currently have a total of 322 nominations, of which 152 have been approved, a gap of 170, up 35 from eleven days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ashleyyoursmile and KittenKlub: Now in Queue 2, this hook is inaccurate because the biological reserve is composed of two separate parts. The gold mining project is in the region between these which is not part of the biological reserve. So we need to revise the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
... that the Lucifer Dékou-Dékou Biological Reserve, the largest wilderness area of France, is divided in two by land which includes the country's biggest mining project, the Montagne d'Or mine? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Old-age-security hypothesis
I think we can go ahead and remove this nom, as the nominator is not able to suggest a usable hook. Unless someone else can come up with one that works?4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been proposed before, but has anyone ever thought up of making a DYK reviewer tool that could help automate or at least guide the process, much like our new DYK nomination tool? For example, a hypothetical DYK reviewer tool could have a similar interface as the nomination tool, but would check for stuff like hook length, article length, creation/expansion date, as well as automate some things like tick giving or notifying nominators with the necessary messages. While we already have DYKcheck, that tool is article-based rather than nomination page-based, and editors will still need to do the actual review manually. Is such a tool feasible? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking of a tool similar to the DYK nomination one (with the Twinkle-like interface). The DYK toolbox can be a bit fiddly to use especially for newcomers since they're so reliant on other links, plus the actual review is still done manually in any case. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew03:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not able to do it myself, but I suspect someone could adapt DYKcheck to work from the nomination page looking from the date of the nomination rather than the current date. CMD (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, once Shubinator does his Python magic for us, please leave the existing tools in Toolbox, or let me know if you're going to eliminate them, so I can link them to one of my subpages. Because I find them helpful to me for other editing. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Krakkos, SL93, and Vaticidalprophet: The hook currently has "(pictured)" immediately following a possessive, which isn't normally good form. Would it be fine if we reworded this to "that Myth and Religion of the North by Gabriel Turville-Petre(pictured)" instead? I think this would probably make the wording a little clearer as well. — RAVENPVFF·talk·22:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The hook for the Hunterdon Art Museum reads " ... that the Hunterdon Art Museum, located in a historic stone mill, was described as the “most charming and picturesque” museum in the state?" I suggested to the nominator that we replace "state" with "New Jersey", given that the hook has no reference to where the museum is located. The nominator wonders if it would be sufficient to link wikilink the word state to New Jersey. Comments? MeegsC (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure entirely what to do about this, but I find this a bit confusing. The hook says "Edward VIII (pictured)", but the pic is of him when he was no longer king, with the caption "The Duke of Windsor in 1970". This assumes that readers actually know Edward VIII and the Duke of Windsor are the same person. And it also looks a bit odd given that he wasn't king at the time of the pic, up-to-date or otherwise. Obviously I can see that the reason for that is that the article is about the interview, which was dated to 1970, but without clicking through to the article, or having a bit more context, it's not obvious what's going on here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree the caption is unhelpful, as people wouldn't know that Edward VIII was Duke of Windsor after being King. When I first saw that photo, I thought it was Prince Charles (who looks very similar). Joseph2302 (talk)08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I would look for a new hook. The current hook in no way establishes a link to the topic of the article, which is a specific interview, rather than the KingDuke himself. Also agree on picture caption, it should match the hook. Perhaps "Former King Edward VIII". CMD (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that the hook is fine because it is in the article. Though the image can be removed entirely if it could confuse people. As the promoter, I feel that it doesn't necessarily need the image slot. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
How about...'in his youth/when he was younger, the Duke of Windsor wanted to be an 'up to date King'? I think the hook is fine, its about the duke linking to an article of which the duke is the primary subject. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
A couple of queries re the last part of this hook - (1) the article says "ceremonial road", whereas this hook says "ceremonial route". Why the discrepancy? (2) personally I'm not clear what the term actually means. We don't seem to have an article on either ceremonial road or ceremonial route, so should this be in quotes? (3) the article says it is "known as" this, but without telling us who knows that... this seems to be discouraged by MOS:WTW#Unsupported attributions, and we should at least say what evidence there is that it is "known as" that. (Note though, that as long as the article makes this point clear, there is no need for the hook to also do so). Pinging @Floydian and Sammi Brie: as nominator/reviewer. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Did a bit more digging and came up with a spate of articles from the 1980s referring to it as such and mentioning the National Capital Commission: [5][6]. This refers to the title of a report commissioned in 1983 which appeared to consider Sussex Drive as part of a larger ceremonial route: [7]. Seems like the designer, John Abel, also used it: [8]. So it's been used to describe Sussex Drive alone and Confederation Boulevard, of which Sussex Drive is a part. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
So for 1/2, I'm not sure why ceremonial road / route (same thing) would need a link... it's a road/route/path/line that is ceremonial, or where ceremonies take place. You may be over analysing the term at more than face value. As for 3, I'd essentially be rewriting the lede sentence as "Known to Canadians, politicians, journalists, dignitaries, governments etc. as Canada's ceremonial road". Just the same as "also known as Ottawa Regional Road 93", the whom is "the public". - Floydianτ¢14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: the problem isn't really with the sourcing, I was just genuinely unsure what a "ceremonial road" means. We don't have an article on the concept, and there doesn't seem a massive amount in literature. If it's something specific to Canada, you'd imagine that it would be in quotes. But anyway, it looks like nobody else is seeing issues with it, so I guess we just let it ride. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I have the same problem. In my understanding, a "ceremonial route" is a description of the path taken, not the pathway itself. That is, a ceremonial route may include one or more roads, but the roads are not actually the ceremonial route. And a "ceremonial road" would be one that is only used for these ceremonies, never for actual traffic.--Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way about using "road" in place of "route" given that they are less synonymous terms elsewhere. Likewise if it gets switched to "part of Canada's ceremonial route". I've never heard of a road just for ceremonies and not traffic (sounds like a Kremlin thing), but the equivalent in the U.S. is Pennsylvania Avenue. - Floydianτ¢14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
But Pennsylvania Avenue is not a "ceremonial route". It's a road. Various ceremonies may have their routes follow that road, but the road is not those routes. --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If this was my hook, I would just remove the ceremonial route part from the hook and article. I'm not sure how important it is to both of them when there is no context in the article. SL93 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If time is of the essence, then I can make do with it just being "The residence of the {Prime Minister of Canada} is located on Sussex Drive (pictured)", but what I'm aiming for here is a rendition of "Sussex Drive is to Canada as Downing Street is to Britain". The question is, how specific do we want to get with things? I could ping a dozen prolific Canadian editors and get something nice hammered out (not in 15 hours), but what would that ol' biddy Procedure have to say on that front? I'm honestly flexible, there's plenty to go with on this topic! - Floydianτ¢21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kieran207: This hook seems to be supported by neither the article nor the source. The online version of the Ridgefield Encyclopedia does not have page numbers, but searching for "Twain" brings up two results, neither of which refers to the station. I think we need a different hook, and I wonder whether this defunct station, of which no trace remains, is even notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Relevant section of the source is "Cooper Station: On the west side of Cooper Hill Road where it crosses the track bed; included a post office; Samuel Langhorne Clemens of Redding, a friend of Colonel Edward M. Knox (q.v.) of Downsbury Manor (q.v.), would ride the train from West Redding to Branchville, to Cooper Station, where he was met by the Colonel; station named for neighborhood, said to have had a cooper with quarters nearby; called the “Milk Station” and “Zallicoffers” [P4/8/1909; [RN]". Per the Mark Twain article, "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" is the real name, and Twain died in Redding, so possibly Twain at a glance. It is one friend only, and I don't think we usually include words like "famed", but the hook seems plausible. No opinion on notability. CMD (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm very much not a train editor, and one may correct me. That said, I've read some writings of train editors, and my understanding is stations are what you might call inherently notable. The phrase "inherent notability" hits a red-hot button for a certain kind of person, but what that means here is that virtually any train station can be expected to have enough coverage to sustain a respectable (indeed, "good enough for DYK" is a solid line) article. There's some mergist vs splittist debate, but even the defunct and dismantled ones had enough lifetime coverage to pass GNG. This might be of interest. Vaticidalprophet09:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think CMD and Vaticidalprophet summed it up pretty well. Things can get confusing with the Twain thing because he is often referred to by his real name (Samuel Clemens) in most local history sources. Other than that, is there any other issues with the hook?--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀22:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "would frequently use" is also not the most professional language in my opinion. We should just say "frequently used". I recommend changing the hook to: "that writer Mark Twain frequently used the Cooper station to meet with a friend?" — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There's enough editors here agreeing with the new hook, Amakuru would just be implementing consensus. If Kieran207 is sure that the Samuel in question is actually the Mark, then I agree with the new hook, but I'd remove the "the" in "the Cooper Station", as I don't think stations are usually prefaced with such an article and Cooper station (Connecticut) doesn't use a "the". CMD (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, although I don't think it required 4 pings. If it was undergoing a GAR, then it shouldn't really have been in the approved list. I see it has been pulled now, so that's grand. Fwiw, I trust Kosack to do a good article review, so I'm sure the GAR will be fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski the approval list is bot automated. Once an approval tick is on there it will move it, even if another hold up tick is placed after the approval one. The bot cannot differentiate status when there are conflicting ticks, so always read the conversation before promoting the article. FYI moving hooks out of the approval section is pointless because the bot will simply move them back if there was an approval tick given at any point of the conversation, so you always need to read to make sure nobody opposed a DYK approval tick.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I have added the Steve Cherry nomination back to the regular nominations page—we don't want it to disappear altogether. 4meter4, the bot is designed to move a nomination from the Nominations to the Approved page if the final icon on the nomination is a green or gray tick icon; an icon that has been superseded should not be acted on by the bot, and if you've seen cases where it has, please let us know so the bot can be fixed. (There is no reverse move, unfortunately, if the tick is superseded after the nomination is on the Approved page.) However, the main point is that anyone promoting a nomination on the Approved page should check to be sure that the final icon is a tick (not to mention reviewing the recent discussion to see whether any other issues might pertain), which was not the case for this particular nomination; indeed, there wasn't a tick anywhere on the page at the time it was promoted since valeree had earlier removed her approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
... that 49.5-million-year-old fossils of Comptonia columbiana leaves (example pictured) preserve evidence of moth feeding?
I can't see the figure 49.5 million anywhere in the article, and in particular I can't see anywhere in the paragraph about the moths. The section above the moths section does say "Liu et al (2015) utilized C. columbiana for a calibration species anchored at 49 mya rooting the Comptonia peregrina outgroup data", so I did wonder if that's intended to confirm the date? Aside from the 49 vs 49.5 issue, it doesn't seem clear that the fossil examined by Liu is the same one that confirmed the presence of moths. As a non-specialist I also have no idea what "rooting the outgroup data" actually means, which is something that should maybe be clarified. Pinging @Kevmin and Casliber: as nominator and reviewer. — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I have added two more citations for the age and It should be adjusted slightly in the hook to the accurate 49.42 million years ago. The additional citations are in the first paragraph last sentence of the Distribution and paleoenvironment section. A fossil of the species Comptonia columbiana (From the Klondike mountain formation specifically) has the moth feeding damage preserved.--Kevmin§14:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin: Thanks for the update. If the figure is 49.42 ± 0.54 then probably it would be sensible to be a bit less specific in the hook, maybe say around 50 or something. I'm also still unsure of the link between that age and the specimens that are discussed in regard to the moths. You've said above that it's specifically the Klondike mountain fossil that has moth feeding damage, but I'm not seeing that in the article at present. Please could you update to make that clear? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Rounding to 50 is not warranted, as that takes it hundreds of thousands of years older then the upper error range would be. Either 49.5 or 49.4 would be better, with 49.5 more often used in the literature. The moth feeding is on a fossil specifically from the Klondike Mountain Formation, as detailed by Labandeira (2002), thus the age is 49.42 million years ago per modern dating of the formation (Wolfe et al 2003). I think it would help me help you if you could elaborate on where you feel there is ambiguity on the age of the specimen in question.--Kevmin§16:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin: the error given with the figure gives it an effective possible range of 48.88 to 49.96, so giving it as 49.42 (without the range) is excessive and undue precision. This is a hook, intended for a broad audience, not a scientific paper. As such, I think "around 50" or some variant thereof is sufficient. Any figure with more significant figures than that is potentially inaccurate. Re the other point, your most recent edit satisfies my concern with that one, cheers. — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: if you feel that keeping within a correct range of million years is to precise for the hook itself then 49 is the correct way to go, readers will understand 49 as well as 50 and it will retain factual accuracy that way.--Kevmin§19:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If it's 49.42 ± 0.54 I'd go with "...almost 50-million...", as it's a bit of a hookier number (and slightly more pedantically accurate given the range can slip just under 49). CMD (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
"... that in the 1950s, the Soviet Union introduced an open university system to enable working-class students to become useful functionaries of the Communist party?"...Really?
This "did you know" section is immensely poor. It goes against the founding principles of Wikipedia's supposed neutrality that introducing an open University system is reduced to a mere propaganda function. Would we ever describe a capitalist country creating an open university system as "creating useful agents of capital accumulation" or whatever? Of course not. This is a ridiculous sentence that has no place in Wikipedia and should be immediately removed as to argue the sole reason behind the move was to create "useful party functionaries" is completely unfounded and untrue.
92.30.212.64 Demanding people to do your bidding is never a good way to get things completed. I would try to help, but I'm not feeling the need to right now. SL93 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Location, location, location
What's the general feeling about our need to locate our "place" hooks in a place? The hook for the Seagram Building says simply "...that a head was displayed in the Seagram Building's plaza in 1968?" Should we say that it's in NYC? (Only one of the seven suggested hooks mentions that.) Or is the location unnecessary? MeegsC (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't view it as important unless it directly relates to whatever the hook is. The location is the building, and more context is in the article. City/country is important for prep builders perhaps, but not for the hook itself. CMD (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I do actually think it's preferable to provide context except in cases there's no possibility of confusion. I think there are many exceptions, though -- if it would make the hook too long or just wordy, if it affects readability, etc. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a WP:WEASEL issue here, in that the claim here is unattributed. The article text says "The event has been described as the world's first science fiction convention" without saying who described it as such. (Note that it would be permitted for the hook or the article's lead to use language like this, but somewhere in the article we must attribute it. To be honest, in this case, with three separate sources saying the same thing, we could probably just assert it in Wikipedia's voice.
The article doesn't have a lead section, it's just one long body. I've added the tag to that effect, and it is seemingly an orange-tag issue so I'm wondering if it is even permitted at DYK at the moment?
As regards #2: I'm the promoter, not pinged. I looked at the article, went "this doesn't have the usual layout", and then went "...and it looks better than it would if it did". I don't believe 'no lead section' is an appropriate tag here -- of course it has one. What it doesn't have is the, uh, rest of them. What that aspect of the MoS is pointing at is more or less a gauge to tell stubs from non-stubs, in that most of the latter will have sufficient context to distinguish sections, but per the tag right there: [I]t is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. This is obviously not a stub -- it's more than double DYK minimum and comprehensive enough to educate the reader. It also doesn't have obvious sectioning spots that wouldn't make the article look worse rather than better; the current structure permits the most natural reading flow and illustration format. Accordingly: no cleanup tag warranted, no DYK ineligibility. Vaticidalprophet11:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that it's someone at the Royal Albert Hall who retconned this event as the "the world's first science fiction convention". It's not an entirely unwarranted description, but I don't find any sources that describe the Bazaar as a possible contender for the first SF con throne before the Albert Hall came up with it (despite their assertion that the event is "[w]idely regarded as the world's first ever sci-fi convention"). It is true, however, that others have picked up the characterization since the Albert Hall started describing it as such. I've adjusted the language here and added another cite to somebody else using the description. (BTW, feel free to fix how that citation appears. I wasn't sure how to cite an essay by one author in a book of literary criticism edited by three other people, and the Journal citation template I used wasn't ideal.) You can also take a look at how I dealt the the assertion that the Vril-Ya Bazaar was the world's first SF con in the history section of the WP article Science Fiction Convention.
As for the lack of a lead section, guilty as charged. The first paragraph is a lede, but not a lead section as we are encouraged to include in WP articles. I did it that way because, as @Vaticidalprophet: suggests (thanks!), I felt the article would suffer if I broke it into a true lead section and several other sections (e.g., one about Tibbits' plan to hold the fundraiser, one about the Bulwer Lytton novel he chose as a theme, one about the event itself, one about the aftermath). Each such section would be absurdly short. Instead, I boldly proceeded to write it as you see it, a short article that provides, IMHO, all that is reasonably needed in an encyclopedia article about this quirky, interesting, but hardly world-changing, Victorian oddity.
Thanks, all, for your efforts on this. There are a bunch of convention-going SF fans who I hope will be interested and amused when this pops up in DYK, and hopefully others will find the article an interesting read as well. JohnPomeranz (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about the article not having a traditional lead. It's going to be on the main page where editors can bring it up at the errors page and retag the article. I don't think that there being a lead means that multiple sections are needed either. SL93 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For what it's worth, I'm reasonably confident I've seen similarly-structured articles pass through DYK without rousing the attention of ERRORS (which is pretty capricious anyway). It's not an uncommon structure. Vaticidalprophet11:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: that looks great to me. I have swapped the hook for the one suggested, since all seem to be in agreement on that. Cheers. — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @SL93:, for addressing the lead section issue and thanks again @Amakuru and Vaticidalprophet:. I worry that the revised hook suggests that the Royal Albert Hall called the event an SF convention back in 1891 when the event was held there, rather than assigning that description many decades later. I think the hook might be improved by adding has, as in: ... that the Royal Albert Hall has called the 1891 Vril-Ya Bazaar and Fete(programme cover pictured) the world's first science fiction convention? Do others agree that this is an improvement? I may just be nit-picking here. JohnPomeranz (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
... that the miracles that established Saint Glodesind's claim to sainthood did not begin until 25 years or more after her death, and most of them occurred over 200 years later?
Perhaps a minor point, but I'm not sure if the claim about that "most of" the miracles occurred more than 200 years later is contained in the article. At the 25-year mark, we're told that "countless people were cured there of various infirmities through her merits", suggesting that there were many miracles at that point. Then, regarding the moving of her body after 200 years, we're told that "a series of miracles occurred" at that point. But I don't see any indication that the 200-year set was much larger than the "countless" events on the 25-year mark? Pinging @Figureskatingfan, Bloom6132, and SL93: as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru The Chosen among Women: Mary and Fatima in Medieval Christianity and Shi`ite Islam states on page 107 says that after Glodesind was moved to her third and final resting place in 830 (she died in 608), "Glodesind worked many miracles that attracted many pilgrims and enjoyed an even more revered status among her family's dead". I figured that the hook made sense because she did become more revered over 200 years after her death, but I guess that it is just original research. I did notice that the book reference in the article doesn't go to the Google Books pages so I guess adding that link would be useful. SL93 (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: yeah, sure, that makes sense and is probably an interesting fact (although I'm not certain what the usual interval is before miracles occur after someone's death). My only concern is over the use of the word "most", implying that a large majority of the qualifying miracles were in the more-than-200-years-later bracket. One suggestion I'd make is that we could just change "most" to "many", which does seem to be covered. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru Just for an easier copy and paste if that hook is chosen ... that the miracles that established Saint Glodesind's claim to sainthood did not begin until 25 years or more after her death, and many of them occurred over 200 years later? I think that hook works. SL93 (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, since this is the next queue up and you've agreed to it, I@ve made the minor change in question. If anyone objects or there's controversy between now and then, then let me know. — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Yah, I'm fine with the change. At the time of Glodesind's beautification, there wasn't the strict requirements for sainthood as there were in later centuries; all it took was a pope declaring it so. And it was more of an instance of over-zealously paraphrasing than OR, btw. But thanks so much for keeping me honest! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
On another note: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the words "begin" and "occurred" are appropriate for things that reliable sources ascertained that happened; not for alleged miracles from medieval times. I strongly propose changing the wording to "that the miracles that established Saint Glodesind's claim to sainthood were not reported until 25 years or more after her death, and many of them over 200 years later" (or whatever to that tune is better supported by the sources). Insignificant detail as it may seem, religious beliefs cannot be exempted from the principles of Wikipedia. NikosGouliaros (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It was already on the main page. I believe that such a detail truly is insignificant though. My reasoning is that the word miracles is already used and people already have their thoughts on those. SL93 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
In response to this and the real-world link requirement for music videos, I don't think our readers are complete idiots so I don't see how it matters. SL93 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
... that the news director of WHNE radio in Cumming, Georgia, resigned after employees claimed that they were told to favor the mayor, a business partner of the station owner, in news coverage?
Sammi Brie, I'm a little concerned that some of these folks are likely still alive and this might be too negative for a BLP DYK hook? I'm wondering if maybe we could find another hook? —valereee (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair concern, even if the radio station itself no longer exists, Valereee. The owner died in 2020 [9]. The mayor is still alive—this scandal did nothing to dent his career, and he lost reelection in 2017 after 47 years in office. The news director I can't find anything about, and there are a lot of false positives for his name because of a notable person with the same name. One obituary suggests a person with the same name in Cumming was alive in 2018. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie, lol it looks like multiple scandals didn't end the mayor's career! Honestly I wonder if we need H. Ford Gravitt. Would this work for you:
... that radio station WSNE in Cumming, Georgia, changed its call letters to WHNE to honor its former owners?
Armenian Genocide denial@Buidhe and Cwmhiraeth: I acknowledge that the hook says what the source say, as the source says it. But "There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it" to somebody just seeing that, it looks awkward. How can anyone be blamed for something that never happened? Is there another way to re-word this so it's not so awkward? — Maile (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, it is presented as "the central argument of Armenian Genocide denial", and showing that the "central argument" isn't actually an argument looks fine to me. I don't think it is too subtle for the main page. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree there could be a better hook. The hook isn't too subtle, it's too obvious. It almost simply repeats the title. CMD (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the whole point of the "summary" is that it emphasizes the self-contradictory nature of the denialists' arguments; they want to deny the genocide and somehow blame the Armenians for it at the same time. Gatoclass (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I promoted the hook because I thought the same thing as Gatoclass, but there are 7 alts to choose from if this hook is found to not be acceptable. SL93 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with it in the image slot, but I don't think you meant me, anyway. However, per Gatoclass I agree that the contradiction is the key to the best hook. However, the existing ALT3 and ALT7 state it a little better (IMO). — Maile (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Clarification of a potential special occasion date for a hook
Template:Did you know nominations/Mikoto Misaka was recently nominated; it is about the fictional character Mikoto Misaka, although all the hooks proposed relate to the real world. Now it just so happened that Mikoto's birthday, May 2nd, is coming up, so I suggested to the nom if they'd be fine a May 2 special occasion date. I remember that there was controversy in the past if birthdays of fictional characters are sufficiently "special" to be granted, but given that this is the birthday of the actual article subject, perhaps the request could be granted in this case? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew04:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to promote for such a date myself. (As a non-anime fan, the hooks that stand out to me there as interesting-enough-for-DYK are ALT0 and ALT2, moreso ALT2; I specify because you seemed curious about it in your review.) Vaticidalprophet04:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I still think it's a bit much to make special arrangements for the fictional birthday of a fictional character, but I don't feel very very strongly about it. As you said, at least this one pertains to the actual subject of the article. 97198 (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Preps for May 2nd are still a few days away, so notice is reasonably early and there's no switching hassle involved. I don't see why not unless something is competing with it. Non-American, not a biography (I guess), and non-image, so should be easy to slot in. CMD (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Has anything changed in the last few days about moving preps to queues? I moved one just now and had a terrible time getting cut-paste and copy-paste to work for me. And am I crazy or have the numbered lines always been there? Or have I managed to change some setting somewhere without noticing? Thanks for any help. I've been crazy busy IRL and just am wondering if the crazy busy has deteriorated to simple crazy. —valereee (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I have had no problems, and I am not sure what you mean by the numbered lines, but the named administrator at the top of each queue is new. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I knew about the new admin name (I think that's a good change!) When I opened the queue and prep today, the editing window has a greyed-out column on the left that numbers each line. I don't remember seeing it before, but maybe it's been there and I haven't noticed because I wasn't scrutinizing it so closely as I was today while having troubles. :D In the prep I normally open the editing window, click in it, select all, cut, then paste into the queue editing window. I could not for the life of me get it to cut. I could copy-paste but not cut-paste. In order to empty the prep I had to go back in, reselect all, and delete. Cut wouldn't do it. It's not a big deal, just something that hasn't happened before, and I wondered if maybe something had changed. —valereee (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the problem must have had to do with your computer. What I do is select all, copy the prep area and paste it into the queue editing area, leaving the prep text highlighted. Then I copy the "Template:Did you know/Clear" and paste it into the already highlighted prep area. Fewer steps involved! I can't replicate your greyed-out numbered column. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The numbers are a new thing that's just been rolled out to templatespace (on all projects). They're part of programming, so it's to make template editing more sensical/discussable. Vaticidalprophet06:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mandarax, ah! Thanks, I hadn't read that yet, and I do indeed use syntax highlighting! The numbers don't bother me, it was just that I noticed them at the same time I was having this apparently unrelated issue and thought maybe I'd done something stupid. —valereee (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Done OK. I've swapped a few things around and it's now in prep 5, due to run on the 26 March as a non-picture hook. I've also removed the images from the article. — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Resolved
.jpg)
_-_Arriero_Antioque%C3%B1o_(6929394022).jpg)
.jpg)
) in the toolbar just above the edit box. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}